Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 5/24/1994

Commonwealth v. Reid

Citations

642 A.2d 453
537 Pa. 167
1994 Pa. LEXIS 166

How courts have described this case

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

noting that there is no constitutional right to hybrid representation and pro se briefs filed by appellants in criminal cases while represented will not be considered
finding Ake satisfied when trial court offered indigent defendant the “opportunity to be examined by a neutral court-appointed psychiatrist”
rejecting an appellant’s assertion that violent offenses committed after the murder for which he was being sentenced could not be used to establish a significant history of prior violent offenses for purposes of subsection (d)(9
rejecting an appellant's assertion that violent offenses committed after the murder for which he was being sentenced could not be used to establish a significant history of prior violent offenses for purposes of subsection (d)(9
explaining that hybrid representation is not permissible
explaining that hybrid representation is not permitted

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Larsen, Flaherty, Zappala, Papadakos, Cappy, Montemuro, Nix

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

18 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

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.