Opinion by
This case is before us on a petition for writ of habeas cоrpus. The petitioner alleges: (1) that he was denied due process of law when he was arrested and confined in three diffеrent jails, where he was denied the right to call an attorney to determine why he was being held; (2) that he was held illegally for twelve full days, tortured, coerced, and denied the right to *220 liave an attorney; (3) that he was denied the right to have counsel during the preliminаry hearing before a magistrate; (4) that the police questioned him without an attorney at three different police stations.
The record discloses that the petitioner was brought to trial December 6, 1948, at which time he was represented by counsеl. At the trial of his case, disc recordings of statements made by the petitioner to the police were played to the jury and offered as evidence. Stenographic transcriрtions of the recordings, signed by the defendant, were offered into evidence. The introduction of both the disc recordings and the signed statements were objected to by counsel for the defendant on the grounds that the statements were made without benefit of counsel and were obtained through coercion. As was the practice at the time, the issue of the voluntariness оf the confessions was submitted to the jury and the jury found the defendant guilty.
Appellant’s contention that he has been denied due prоcess of law because he was without counsel at the preliminary hearing before the magistrate is without merit. As this court has said on many occasions, the preliminary hearing in Pennsylvania is nоt a critical stage in a criminal procedure, when none of the proceedings in the preliminary hearing were introduсed at the trial.
Com. ex rel. Lofton v. Russell,
Petitioner urges that his lack of counsel at the time of his questioning and at the time his confessions were given to thе police was a denial of due process. In
Escobedo v. Illinois,
It is thereforе not necessary that we determine whether the accusаtory stage had been reached during the questioning of Shaffer, as is required in
Escobedotype
situations. However, inasmuch as the petitioner allеges that the statements which were introduced were not voluntarily given, the issue of voluntariness of the statements must be determined in a hearing independent of the trial.
Jackson v. Denno,
Shaffer’s petition was denied without benefit of hearing on the issue of voluntariness of his statements. Therefore, we conclude that the lower court should hold a hearing to determine whether or not the incriminat-. ing statements made by Shaffer had been voluntarily given. It should be noted in this light that when а petition for writ of habeas corpus alleges an issue which, if proven, would be grounds for the granting of the writ, a hearing must be held to determine the validity of petitioner’s allegation. See
Com. ex rel. Hilberry v. Maroney,
Order vacated, record remanded to the court below to hold a hearing consistent with this opinion.