The appellant was found guilty of conspiracy but not guilty of robbery and weapons offenses related to a tavern robbery. During the trial, the detective testified that a witness identified the appellant as involved in the robbery. The defense objected, arguing that this was hearsay not subject to any exception. The court agreed with the defense, found a violation of the appellant's confrontation rights, and ordered a new trial.
Commonwealth v. Farris (1977)
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
251 Pa. Super. 277, 380 A.2d 486
Learn more about this case at [ Ссылка ]
---
Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just the name or case cite.
Check out all of our case briefs: [ Ссылка ]
Briefs come with built in LSDefine and DeepDive, which allow you to read as quickly or as deeply as you want. Each brief has a built in legal dictionary and recursive summaries that go into more and more detail, until you eventually hit the original case text.
Subscribe for new videos every week: [ Ссылка ]
