# Commonwealth v. Brooks

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · December 30, 2003 · 576 Pa. 332

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9649064

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Billy BROOKS, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** December 30, 2003
- **Citations:** 576 Pa. 332; 839 A.2d 245; 2003 Pa. LEXIS 2563
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Lamb
- **Judges:** Cappy, Castille, Nigro, Newman, Saylor, Eakin, Lamb
- **Cited by:** 67 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9649064

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding failure to hold any meetings with defendant before trial was ineffective assistance of counsel

## Opinion text

Justice LAMB
concurring.
I join the majority opinion, with which I completely agree, but write separately to voice my concern that both the trial court and the district attorney’s office need to be diligent in making sure that the representation of a defendant, particularly in a capital case, is effective. Surely, no one today can doubt that a defense lawyer must, at a minimum, have face-to- *349 face contact with his client pre-trial to effectuate effective representation. While all participants in the criminal justice system have their separate responsibilities, the trial judge and the district attorney must be particularly sensitive to ensuring the rights of the criminal defendant, even if defense counsel himself is not as vigilant.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9649064. Public record. Not legal advice.