Commonwealth v. Stilley

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that appellate court may exercise discretion to invoke waiver provision of Rule 1925 only where failure to file statement or omission from statement defeats effective appellate review
• holding that appellate court may exercise discretion to invoke waiver provision of Rule 1925 only where failure to file statement or omission from statement defeats effective appellate review
• holding court’s ex parte communication with jury, to inquire as to progress of deliberations, not reversible error; appellant failed to allege any prejudice and court had special reason for inquiry
• court may exclude public from trial “to prevent overcrowding, to maintain proper decorum, or where special circumstances warrant”
• “This argument is completely unsupported and made without reference to case law or legal analysis. We, therefore, will not address it.”
• where the prosecutor’s involvement in another trial was excludable time in light of defense counsel’s failure to object to the Commonwealth’s request to continue the case, in the context of Rule 1100.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).