Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 10/18/2005

Commonwealth v. Lambert

Citations

884 A.2d 848
584 Pa. 461
2005 Pa. LEXIS 2303

How courts have described this case

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

holding that “so long as the facts set forth in the police file were not otherwise known to appellant, the Brady claims he asserts are ‘timely’ under the newly[-]discovered evidence exception”
adding that “the question is whether the favorable evidence could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict”
stating that the “cumulative impact of meritless Brady claims cannot be grounds for relief.”
rejecting an appellant’s Brady claim that the Commonwealth failed to disclose evi dence that was duplicative of evidence the appellant received in discovery
finding no Brady violation where the defendant knew, or with reasonable diligence, could have uncovered the evidence allegedly suppressed
explaining that a successful Brady claim requires (Footnote Continued Next Page

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Cappy, Castille, Nigro, Newman, Saylor, Eakin, Baer

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

23 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.