Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2/21/1992

Commonwealth v. Lambert

Citations

603 A.2d 568
529 Pa. 320
1992 Pa. LEXIS 65

How courts have described this case

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

holding that, even in separate trial, other crimes evidence would not have been admissible and identification testimony would have been admissible
holding that, even in separate trial, other crimes evidence would not have been admissible and identification testimony would have been admissible
recognizing that separate trials for co-defendants should be granted where the evidence is such that, while it will be introduced against one defendant, it will not be admissible against others
recognizing that separate trials for co-defendants should be granted where the evidence is such that, while it will be introduced against one defendant, it will not be admissible against others
indicating that the term, “knowingly created a grave risk of death to others,” need not be defined by the trial court, as the jury was able to apply a common-sense meaning
stating that “[s]eparate trials of co-defendants should be granted only where the defenses of each are antagonistic to the point where such individual differences are irreconcilable and a joint trial would result in prejudice.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Nix, Flaherty, McDermott, Zappala, Papadakos, Larsen, Former

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

50 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.