Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 7/20/2015

Commonwealth v. Walter

Citations

119 A.3d 255
632 Pa. 174
2015 Pa. LEXIS 1542

How courts have described this case

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

holding that objecting party must make a timely objection stating the specific ground for the objection unless it was apparent from context
finding that “the [eleven]–month period between the latest of the submitted publicity and [a]ppellant’s trial was sufficient to dispel any prejudice against her”
finding that “the 11–month period between the latest of the submitted publicity and [a]ppellant’s trial was sufficient to dispel any prejudice against her”
finding that appellant waived her claim that the Commonwealth’s cross- examination violated her right against self-incrimination because she objected to the questioning on a different basis at trial
finding that the passage of eleven months between the last inflammatory newspaper article and the start of trial was sufficient to dispel any prejudice against the defendant
finding that “the 11–month period between the latest of - 11 - J-A12015-24 the submitted publicity and [a]ppellant’s trial was sufficient to dispel any prejudice against her”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Baer, Eakin, Saylor, Stevens, Todd

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

55 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.