The revelation by a Philadelphia prosecutor of a defendant’s name in relation to his co-defendant’s redacted testimony in a homicide trial was improper, but not egregious enough to merit the new trial the Superior Court had ordered, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled.
In Commonwealth v. Brown, PICS No. 07-1014 (Pa. June 26, 2007) Castille, J.; Baer, J., dissenting (33 pages) the majority rejected the defendant’s argument that the prosecutor’s slip triggered a Bruton situation. Alternately, the court found that the comment was curable by a cautionary instruction to the jury.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
