Commonwealth v. Sam

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the failure of trial counsel to present mitigating evidence did not constitute ineffectiveness when the defendant directed counsel not to present such evidence
• holding that the failure of trial counsel to present mitigating evidence did not constitute ineffectiveness when the defendant directed counsel not to present such evidence
• holding that the failure of trial counsel to present mitigating evidence did not constitute ineffectiveness when the defendant directed counsel not to present such evidence
• holding that a “criminal defendant has the right to decide whether mitigating evidence will be presented on his behalf”
• holding that “in the instant case, on the facts presented here, we are certain that the jury would have returned the same verdict ... had it been properly instructed.The failure to request the limiting instruction did not alter the outcome.”
• relying on Rule 1.2 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct wherein it provides that “a lawyer shall abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).