Pisa v. Commonwealth

How courts have described this case

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

• “having participated in the preparation of the defendant’s case, [a lawyer] could not properly participate in the prosecution of the defendant”
• once a case has gone to judgment, whether an impropriety has resulted in prejudice becomes a relevant consideration
• “in [an attorney’s] representation of the original client, there should be no prospect that he [or she] might later be employed by a different client to uphold or upset what he [or she] had done”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).