Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 12/31/1982

Commonwealth v. Jenkins

Citations

454 A.2d 1004
500 Pa. 144
1982 Pa. LEXIS 688

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

Davenport rule to be interpreted to “! .. accomplish the purposes sought to be achieved by the requirement of a prompt arraignment.”
Davenport rule to be interpreted to \. . . accomplish the purposes sought to be achieved by the requirement of a prompt arraignment.\
Commonwealth's election to release defendant within six-hour period to avoid consequences of violation of prompt arraignment rule did not require suppression of inculpatory custodial statement given by defendant
Commonwealth’s election to release defendant within six-hour period to avoid consequences of violation of prompt arraignment rule did not require suppression of inculpatory custodial statement given by defendant
both setting forth bright line rules concerning station house confessions
both setting forth bright line rules concerning station house confessions

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: O'Brien, Roberts, Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Hutchinson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

27 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

32 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.