Determining when a case is strong enough to prosecute and when a confidential informant might be too compromised to take the witness stand are decisions typically made behind closed doors. However, in the wake of state Attorney General Kathleen Kane’s decision to shutter a public corruption investigation, these nuts-and-bolts choices have gained a high profile.
Lawyers are now debating whether close scrutiny into decision-making and deal-cutting that typically take place behind the scenes will affect the jury pool or the prosecution of corruption cases in general in Pennsylvania.
This content has been archived.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]
