The Pennsylvania Superior Court has addressed multiple issues of first impression regarding criminal convictions for retaliating against a prosecutor or judicial officer. Any action taken against any individual in retaliation for the action of a prosecutor or judge is sufficient to sustain a retaliation conviction, the court held, but the infliction of “distinct harm” is a required element of the crime.
A split panel of the court ruled July 19 in Commonwealth v. Walls that there was sufficient evidence to show Salim Walls took retaliatory action against prosecutor Kathryn Brown when he approached in public and yelled at her. But the court said there was insufficient evidence to establish the “requisite element of harm” to convict him of the retaliation charge.
This content has been archived.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]
