Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 12/30/1983

Commonwealth v. Scott

Citations

470 A.2d 91
503 Pa. 624
1983 Pa. LEXIS 793

How courts have described this case

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

stating that a claim of newly-discovered evidence will fail where the proposed new evidence is not admissible
concluding post-trial statements from co-conspirator were “clearly untrustworthy and unreliable, bordering on charade”
“When dissecting a double hearsay statement, the reliability and trustworthiness of each declarant must be independently established.”
“When dissecting a double hearsay statement, the reliability and trustworthiness of each declarant must be independently established.”
after-discovered evidence claim failed where alleged exculpatory statement, a statement relayed to defense counsel by attorney for co-indictee, which in turn had been told to him by co-indictee, was double hearsay
post-verdict accomplice testimony should be considered with caution

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Roberts, Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Hutchinson, Zappala

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

11 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.