*1 Appellant. v. Cannon, Common wealth April Argued Before J.,C. Stern, Jones, JJ. Musmanno Bell, Chidsey, Arnold, & Shaw Smith, Walter T. McGough, Reed, for appellant. McGlay, *2 Attorney, Assistant District
William Glaney Smith, ap- for District Attorney, Edward G. Boyle, with pellee.
Opinion June Mr. Justice 25, 1956: Bell, of murder in Defendant convicted aby jury was Defendant’s the first “with life degree imprisonment”. judgment motion for a denied and after new trial was was entered this appeal followed.
The that defendant went proved Commonwealth six on the evening Grill at about o’clock Stanley’s for several hours April he remained 13, where and At about 9:30 beer drinking occasionally whiskey. bar- an with the argument that he into evening got Williams tender who called for the manager. Williams, off and that he told that his drinks were shut Cannon Mm out. was then escorted put have to Cannon he reappeared, to the seconds thereafter door. Several he about five feet and when was approached Williams, and from underneath coat pulled pistol away Five wit- fired three shots into Williams’ abdomen. in Stan- nesses testified that saw the defendant they murder. tes- Grill the Two witnesses ley’s night and kill Williams. tified that saw defendant shoot they defendant declaration accusing Williams made a dying de- his murder. all Notwithstanding testimony, stand in his own defense —denied taking fendant — in Stan- he had done the or that was shooting on the He testified night question. Grill ley’s he had left bus Chi- Pittsburgh earlier that day friend whom after an with a argument girl cago until he he had been He was living. fugitive on Cleveland, apprehended Ohio, May alleges important Defendant reasons two for a new (1) permit trial: error to the Commonwealth to introduce of defendant’s evidence conviction (a) manslaughter, manslaugh- because the crime passion atrocity ter was not a crime of sordid and professional (b) the defendant was not a criminal, because defendant had the offense of been prosecutor’s manslaughter; (2) opening re- jury prejudicial highly marks to the were so as to con- stitute reversible error.
In a trial sur an indictment for the record murder, of a former conviction of unrelated crimes is admissi- purpose influencing ble not for the evidence, Court) (or determining guilt defendant’s being or innocence of the crime for he is tried, *3 purpose solely aiding jury but for the limited (or Court) determining penalty to be im- posed, guilty in the event that the defendant is found degree: of murder the first v. Commonwealth LaRue, 381 Pa. 112 A. 2d v. 113, 120, 362; Commonwealth Lowry, 374 Pa. A. 2d 98 Commonwealth 594, 603, 733; v. 361 Pa. 65 A. 2d 391, 401, 358; Common- Simmons, v. Pa. 2d wealth 362 66 A. 229, DePofi, authority admissibility Neither reason nor limit the prior convictions to cases where the defendant was professional either a criminal or his crime was one of passion. sordid supra, v. 881 the rec-
In Commonwealth LaRue, Pa., ord was admitted contained a conviction of de- only namely, robbery. fendant of one armed In crime, supra, v. 361 a convic- Pa., Commonwealth Simmons, conspiracy, robbery and a tion of a conviction of a were jury aid the in its admitted order to function of fix- they ing penalty they if found as did, crime, degree. of murder in the first In be one Commonwealth separate supra, Lowry, four v. conviction of 374 Pa.,
65 though larceny even admissible crimes of held to be imprisonment. See Attorney District life asked infra. Pa., ex rel. v. 324 also: Commonwealth Smith, 417, A. 2d v. Turner, Commonwealth by appellant, held is on this relied 915, prior not admissible, that evidence of arrests lim- when but evidence of crimes was admissible other prior or admissions”. ited “to confessions convictions, 434): (page The Court said interpreted May Act of
“The
P. L.
1925,
759,
14,
so
convictions
this Court
evidence of
allows
past
jury may
. .
deeds
that
have before it
fully
the accused
nature
advised
penalty .
.’:
deserts
fixes the
.
Common
when it
Pa.
Common
28;
wealth v.
168 A.
Kuruts,
Dague,
. .
.
wealth v.
Pa.
know what
guilty
the first de-
should find him
of murder of
’
gree,
.” ”.
. .
is
first contention.
There
no merit
defendant’s
brings
question
That
involved—
us to
second
prior crime
offer
evidence
Can
Commonwealth
pardoned? defendant
but
was convicted
important
question
again
to note once
*4
fixing
penalty,
of a
arises
with the
connection
imprisonment.
namely,
author-
death
life
While the
or
sharp
throughout
country
disagreement
ities
are in
language may
pardon,
as to
effect of a
and while
sufficiently
ex-
eases
broad to
be found
some of our
Pennsylvania
pardoned
has
clude the record of a
crime,
purpose
flatly
here in-
at least
the limited
ruled,
prior
de-
crime which
that the record
volved,
admissible:
fendant
Common-
has been
wealth ex rel. v.
324 Pa.
187 A.
Smith,
73,
387; Carlesi
v. People New
67 “A pardon is an act of grace, from the proceeding power entrusted with the execution of the laws, exempts on whom it is individual, from the bestowed, punish- ment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed.”
Appellant relies upon a dictum contained in Com monwealth ex rel. Banks v. 345 Pa. 28 Cain, 581, 584, A. 2d 837. that case the Court sustained the consti of the Parole tutionality and Act, by way analogy, said (page 584) : “There is a radical difference between A parole. pardon is the exercise of the sovereign’s prerogative frees mercy. completely the offender from the control of the state. It not only exempts him from further punishment but relieves him from all the legal disabilities from his con resulting viction. It blots out the very existence of his guilt, so in the that, he is eye thereafter inno law, as if cent he had never committed the offense:* Diehl v. 169 Pa. Rodgers, 32 A. 316, 319, 424, 425; Common wealth v. 295 Pa. Quaranta, 145 A. 264, 93; 273, 89, Commonwealth v. House, Superior Ct. 259, 264, 265.”
In Commonwealth v.
295
Quaranta,
Pa., supra,
Court held that a defendant
be cross-examined
*
language may
A dictum in almost
same
be found in Ex
Garland,
sweeping language
Parte
71 U.S.
and similar
can be
States,
147;
found in Carlisle v. United
83 U.S.
in Osborn v. United
States,
474;
Klein,
91 U.S.
and in United States v.
about “A is an act inter alia: and said, pardoned, In ef- authority. or from a grace governing of mercy the individual exempting it is a remission of guilt, fect, In Diehl v. ... for the offense. per- states that a Mr. Justice Mitchell Rodgers, supra, though his is restored ‘to civil rights, son pardoned in question offense’. The had committed the never par- as a witness case the competency was of perjury]. had been convicted doned criminal [who competent rendered ‘thereby offenders are Pardoned the jury.’ is still to be left to . . their credit ., witnesses his was (but) credibility witness competent He ‘was it sub- had asked that be ‘if either party jury’ in with the preponderant We accordance hold, mitted.’ has been whenever one who view, that, tes- affect credibility, such as would ordinarily crime the judgment in criminal tifies as a defendant case, the issuance of inquired into, be of conviction 567; also be shown: 20 R.C.L. Curtis pardon may 24 Tex. App. v. 242; Dudley State, v. 50 N.H. Cochran, 47 L.R.A. (N.S.) on Evidence, 980; 163; Wigmore 215.” 10 Pa. Superior v. Ct. House, Commonwealth in ex rel. Banks cited Cain, Commonwealth
264, 265,
the effect of a par-
discussed
Court
supra,
345 Pa.,
out its limitations.
and pointed
don
even if evidence of the pardoned
In the instant case,
admission
its
were
manslaughter
inadmissible,
crime
As
harmless error.
the trial Judge
have been
in
it
admissible
said,
evidence,
and specifically
clearly
in
a deter-
influencing
jury
the purpose
not for
defendant’s
but
guilt
innocence,
solely
mination of
determin-
purpose
aiding
jury
for the limited
be
the event that
the de-
imposed,
penalty
ing
found
of murder
the first
guilty
degree.
fendant
imposed
upon
penalty
by
jury
Cannon
imprisonment;
clearly
there-
death
it
follows,
but life
manslaugh-
crime of
that the admission of
fore,
jury
penalty
ter did not affect or influence the
imposed.
Defendant further contends that a
trial should
new
granted
during
opening address to the
because
prosecutor
first time
said: “This was not the
that James
life of another human be
Cannon took the
ing.”
frequently
said that a remark
coun
We have
sel or
connection
must be considered in
determining
with its context in
whether it constituted
*7
prejudicial and
The District
reversible error.
Attor
ney
opening statement to the
was entitled to make an
prove:
jury outlining the facts he intended to
Am. Jur.
Meyers,
§454. In
v.
2d this far state- Court reviewed 293, (than Attorney ments a District the instant made one)- preju- had held not been —statements 451) (page : “In and said Commonwealth v. dicial, Meyers, A. stated: 374, case, under all the circumstances of ‘Where, just language prose- of the verdict rendered is one, cuting justify such must be officer will reversal its unavoidable effect be to prejudice . . .’
areWe opinion while the ex- language from the cerpted remarks of the District opening At- as to what the intended torney Commonwealth to prove the verdict rendered was badly chosen, obviously and the just one, Court below was convinced that was not intended language to be did not inflammatory, have and did not any inflammatory prejudice effect, We with this conclusion and find jury. agree no re- versible error in the record. affirmed.
Judgment Dissenting Opinion by Mr. Justice Musmanno: The defendant in this James con- case, Cannon, victed of murder in the first the Court degree and Terminer and General Jail of Alle- Oyer Delivery At the trial intro- gheny County. Commonwealth the defendant’s the record of a over duced, objection, for prior conviction the State manslaughter Mary- land a full even the defendant had received though that offense. The introduction of this rec- deprived ord James Cannon of due process law *8 entitles him a trial. a is person to new Once pardoned ceases to exist and of a that conviction the crime, Com- refer to it in has no to of right derogation monwealth the man’s rights. of a “so far blots out contemplation pardon law, it cannot be imputed that afterwards offense,
him assertion of his It legal rights. prevent gives and him him a credit and rehabilitates capacity, new in his former position” (Knote to that extent United States, and hence “its is effect to make 149), U.S. man.” Blackstone the offender a new Com. (4 402). was once that the accused to inform Thus, record shows when the of a heinous offense, convicted again, pardoned, man” make him an “old is to he was charge. cripple He him in his trial on current already drag has from law is made to chains which punishment emancipated is made to suffer a him. He already remitted. To has law punish like yet is a blatant contradiction. is chastising parent forgiving his child while with a ordering absolving strap; one’s debtor like while a or condoning neighbor’s his or home; the sheriff to sell wiping shooting dog; transgressions or slate while bygones letting immersing mire; it in clean while reprisal. preparing bygones an act vindictive while powerful pardon represents most exercise A power sovereign concerned. individuals are insofar as making magic turning time and back It achieves the It reconstructs once existent. non-existent what was repairs bridge it was broken; of honor which replaces it breached; had been of credit which wall good good name the roof of re- of one’s the house over pute had tumbled. probably as well as of the most authoritative,
One is contained definitions most succinct, usually grace, Dictionary: “An act Bouvier’s Law power the execu proceeding from the intrusted exempts on whom the individual laws, tion of in law which the from the bestowed remission It is a he has committed. flicts for a crime guilt the authorized declaration of record and a particular authority is to be relieved individual that a particular consequences legal crime.” 2446.)* page (8th Edition, * throughout, mine. Italics
72 the of a crime is that the consequences
One of legal the con record of the conviction used against others, but this like all court, vict consequence, a In v. obliterated Osborne United by pardon. States, the of States Supreme the U.S. United is of essence of it re said: “It a very pardon his offence.” consequence leases the offender from the of In v. Whart. the offense where Carter, Hoffman Court said counterfeiting Supreme of was involved, was consequence disability of as a witness consequences a re out “One wiped by pardon: from of the disability the sentence was the sulting all the sen to be sworn as a witness; when party is removed consequences tence together had been this sentence, except disability what suffered, separate exist from the source is removed. cannot it is from which derived.” case of Oregon 568, Wood Fitzgerald, held that a restores the to vote one right constitution of arson even the State though
convicted be for itself declared that shall right suffrage im conviction of crime any punishable feited in the prisonment penitentiary. removes all flow- consequences
Since then can how the Commonwealth ing conviction, for a inflict Pennsylvania upon defendant, man- in ad- Maryland, slaughter committed has or expi- to that which he suffered already dition on The the basis Commonwealth, Mary- ated? conviction, attempting land to persuade upon to return a verdict which would visit death consequence be a graver legal defendant. Could there conviction? Maryland to the subject on the trial procedure employed to the contrary under discussion is weight authority concept fairness, humanity, well as every *10 criminology criminal the most advanced views on consequences fol- At law the rehabilitation. common lowing felony fines not limited to a for were conviction disqualification penal They to included servitude. public juror, to in serve to be a to hold vote, office, public any position to enlist in of honor and trust, prison left As the convict armed forces of the nation. of ostracism he a world with walls him, behind entered of stone as did the blocks confined as much which Spurned just quitted. he and the of iron bars private, physically public, he alive rebuffed civilly he moved about in a civil coffin, but dead, pardon, however, of honor’s death. A wore the shroud pump and make back into his desiccated veins could life pardon living again, “not a removed for him a free man punishment legal disabilities conse- but the quent (2 on 275 7 Ba- on crime.” Russell Crimes ; Pardon.) con’s title Abrid., why pardon disabilities,
If a then removes all wipe the conviction that one makes it not out subsequent charge penalty for a a for the death on basis pardon prohibit but all murder? Does the most serious one all? compas- reputed feeling to without
The law is be accepted truly yet legal as act no can be sion and justice appeals finer to one’s unless manifestation This con- cold intellect. as well one’s as sensibilities, expressed Judge cept exceedingly well Federal Armory, v. Athens Erskinu in the case of United States “Although he said: laws where 878, 885, Fed. Cases compassion guilt; principles on not framed are yet Mercy, on bestows in her divine tenderness, when transgressor forgiveness, will Justice the boon of forgetting pause, bid the offense, and, peace.” go man to
In all iniquitous conduct the criminal law exposes, institution like pardon comes an angel part reveal better of human nature and to demonstrate that who is man, intrinsically good, may, all despite walk in the stumblings erectly past, presence of the well as fellow-man’s for- Lord’s, giveness.
And it is not be in- assumed then, variably implies forgiveness for a crime com- actually A mitted. because granted proof *11 justice that On went this Justice astray. subject, in of this in a case will Court, Mitchell be referred to said that later, the is pardoning power adjunct “an to the administration recognized of justice, in all civilized as reason governments necessary by of the human laws and human tribunals fallibility of in the defendant
If, was because he fact, pardoned was innocent of the crime for he was convicted, is it not monstrous to allow that conviction be shown nonetheless aon later of murder? Is not a charge par- in acquittal? don such a situation judicial in effect a For whatever reason a is it can come granted, after a constitutional has been stipulated procedure only followed. should it be attack subject collateral Why more acquittal? than verdict of any jury’s The of the position in the case at bar is Majority at not with the odds of the weight authority but pronouncements nation of this very Court. As as November in the case of recently 23, 1942, Common- wealth ex rel. Banks v. Justice Cain, 581, 584, “A now Chief said: Justice, pardon is Horace Stern, exercise the sovereign’s the It prerogative mercy. frees the offender from the control completely It him state. not from further only exempts punish- ment but relieves from all the legal disabilities re- his exist- from out sulting very conviction. It blots guilt, eye ence so in the he that, law, as as had innocent he never committed thereafter if Today says Majority of this that Court offense.” guilt does blot out the existence eyes man is not law the as if innocent had never committed the offense. explains Majority by its this refusal abide what proclaimed by saying in 1942 Chief Justice’s re- utterance dictum. was garded as dictum I but cannot believe that so solemn, profound measured and an utterance thrown into opinion literary garniture. an as mere Furthermore, specific language was not used for first time in the Banks As case. far back as Mr. Justice Supreme prac- of the United States Court used Field tically phraseology the same ex the famous case of parte U.S. Garland, petitioner
In that A. II. had cause, who Garland, Confederacy during par- served the the Civil War, doned all President of the United States “for arising participation, offenses Mm committed, implied, direct or in the Rebellion.” Gar- *12 When, later, applied practice land to be readmitted to before the Federal it of was demanded under a Courts, Rule him, Congress, of and an of Court Act that take an he oath given any power to the effect he had never aid to hostile to the United of States, This, course, he was actually participated do unable to he because had in Supreme the Rebellion. The of Court the United States pardon held of effect Garland’s towas relieve penalties all from and attached disabilities to the participation offence of treason committed in beyond power and it Rebellion that was of Con- gress punishment beyond to inflict the reach of execu- clemency. Speaking tive for the Justice Field Court, pardon punishment pre- said: “A reaches both the offender; scribed for offence tbe of tbe guilt tbe and and is releases when the it tbe full, and Mots so that in the eye out existence the guilt, of is had never law the as innocent of offender if conviction, committed the If before granted offence. conse- it of tbe and prevents penalties disabilities any if after quent upon attaching; conviction from granted and and it removes tbe penalties disabilities, conviction, bis as it restores him to all civil makes rights; him, ca- a him a and gives and new credit were, new man, pacity.” per-
If presidential pardon a makes tbe convicted concerned, son a new man so far as Federal offense is a crime no less does where gubernatorial is Tbe question pardons tbe State involved. against in tbe of Diehl came before Court case that a Pa. it was contended where Rodgers, testify- H. from disqualified certain Robert Lindsay been in an because bad once Court case be ing Orphans’ be was convicted of even later perjury, though pardoned. tbe and this Court testimony Tbe lower allowed “The saying Justice the Court: Mitchell approved, 'shall person act of 1860 tbe convicted says perjury mat- being be forever witness disqualified any but it also be be fined says ter shall controversy,’ Both are imprisoned. statutory consequences tbe more a tbe remission one no conviction, of tbe statute than tbe remission of tbe other. violation does not in either 'unless be shall say case, Tbe statute tbe tbe legislature enacting because pardoned,’ tbe contemplating exceptional was not case statute its effect on nor of tbe considering any part a pardon, introduced in Tbe 'forever’ was tbe disquali- act. word *13 reference to effect of a any pardon, not with fication to run tbe term merely to show that was with but and to concur with exception of imprisonment, of pro- of same act, section of perjury the case have shall the the endurance viding sections of the two The result pardon. effect of a the disquali- remove shall nothing read together . . .” except fication it is as than less clear if this were “Even
Further: ab in- argument statutory construction, matter Suppose Lindsay strong. very would be eonvenienti be baffled justice must to a murder, witness be re- is it to And how his disability? yet because pardon?” if not aby moved been has always a pardon time immemorial
From restoration unequivocal and complete as the regarded damaged lost or have been rights a man’s strips A pardon the law. an encounter and and shame apparel infamy the striped convict and integrity. of innocence him in the suit clothes had and door society him gate opens every him It guards time of conviction. on him at the closed his hand places and tongues and evil from scurrility call him felon.* still those against a writ who him a felon, not designate If meanest scoundrel may of the representatives authority may on what basis brand law) is the symbol (which Commonwealth him has the sovereign power criminality awith States United Judge away? washed already Ekskine said when he results epitomized well is to obliterate stain which every “Its effect ... that: where offender, place attached the law offense, before he committed he stood and forfeitures to which him from the penalties to free person subjected property: had the law —‘to ‘of all cor Sir William acquit Blaekstone, him’ says * 2, p. Blaekstone, Vol. Sharswood’s *14 penalties and forfeitures poral annexed to the offence he obtains his pardon.’ 4 Com. 402.”** Treating with scant attention what this Court so pronounced emphatically Majority goes to 1936 and cites the back case of ex Commonwealth v. rel. Smith, quoting language might seem to be language point Court. fact, quotation question is not however, something member of this written Court. It by any language from a decision in taken New York State (People Div. Even if this York App. 481). New Carlesi, case an York’s expression were New highest Court, it is still not be on us. not, binding Hoav aside from its lack of em language ever, authority, in the in the York case is opinion more ployed argu NeAV than more than convincing, sophistical per mentative suasive, than exercise in superficial debating more an substance. that legal says a demonstration defendant in that case “did pardon granted of his out the the record or blot conviction, obliterate If the York he had been convicted.” fact that NeAV York, to the Governor of New means say Court go did not actually time he granted pardon, at the an ink the chemicals of records and with to the Court convic the records of the obliterate eraser physically but if it means say speaks correctly, the Court tion, action and superior authoritative, a superseding, does not blot out (in government of constitutional of the repudi the effect phrase) meaning sensible is simply indulg the Court action, and overruled ated to that type According semantics. in fanciful ing ought proceed hangman the official reasoning, even is so recorded if a verdict jury’s a defendant hang but no the verdict court reverses appellate though ** Armory, supra, p. v. The Athens States United actually ink, one blots out knife, chemicals, explosive the words of the verdict the record book According type reasoning, of the Court. to that patient hospital recovered declared never be destroys cured until some one his fever chart. With quoting Khayyam, ap out Omar York New parently impression moving is of the that once the fin *15 ger nothing can out blot what it It over writes, writes. reality finger per looks the salient that the of another possessed greater or at least son, wisdom more en lightenment may rendering in the also matter, write, insipid finger innocuous and the what first wrote.* Majority by quoting suggests, from the case of Commonwealth v. a that where Quaranta, defendant has a he has been conviction on which pardoned, judgment inquired “the of conviction pardon may into and the issuance of a also be shown.” jury pass upon previous To a allow a conviction and procedure. would be an intolerable It would charge, mean that in the midst trial a of a on current the jury upon would be called deliberate on issues decided past already adjudicata. a trial of the and now res present jury try It would mean not present partici- but all those who defendant, pated previous pardon, in the conviction that is, jury, lawyers, judge, governor! and the * paternal command, though post- Under the decree even humously rendered, difficulty blotting Hamlet found no out rec- past: ords o£ the my memory
“From the table of wipe away records, I’ll all trivial fond books, forms, pressures past, All saws of all all youth copied there; That and observation thy And commandment all alone shall live my brain, Within the book and volume (Act I, IV.) Unmix’d with baser matter.” sc. procedure objectives primary of court
One bring legal Once to a definitive end. conflict given processes government any case have criminal the tur terminated and a has been exhausted subject episode, should be on bulent books gather away dust of laid the shelf to closed and on amnesty synonym of the Indeed the oblivion. word pardon, mean from the Greek, amnestia, comes word being forgotten, ing of condition the state oblivion, longer no remembered.* justified arguing
After that the lower Court permitting Maryland conviction, the record of the opinion Majority says in that even if inadmissible its harm the defendant because did not the evidence degree jury life of first murder with returned a verdict imprisonment, death. This is a rather academic and not presupposes and labels that a classifies view. post-graduate nicety of a evidence with all the technical appraise preparing juryA does student thesis. *16 testimony takes no notes. It listens fashion; in that it average intelligent any citizens would listen twelve impulses common to man- reacts with the human Though Judge jury instructs that the is not kind. except previous in connection conviction consider degree on the matter of first with their deliberation jury penalty, be able to dismiss from will never already minds fact that the defendant has their grave Thus an inclination toward crime. manifested unconsciously, they allow that item evi- even will, in their deliberation on the is- dence to influence them guilt in current case. sue of jurors along also have been could influenced Attorney District at the line the remark beginning very “This not of the trial when he said: * parte Garland, 71 Ex U.S.
the first time that James Cannon took the life of an- being.” other human To brand a defendant as an al- ready killing established killer to the is the subject reprehensible, is trial because in effect requires killings although only it him to defend two in- portrays dicted on one. Such a remark the accused as sanctity although one indifferent to the of human life, presumed proved law he is to be innocent until guilty.
One of the cardinal rules of American trials is that required a man on trial shall be to answer charges on which he stands indicted. The fact that he slipped may puddle today have in a of water not does prove dry that he not shod walk tomorrow. Chief put Justice Steen well said in when he the case Commonwealth v. 380 Pa. 47: “One of our Burdell, prized principles most fundamental and in the adminis- except tration of criminal law that a distinct crime, special given under certain cannot be circumstances, against being evidence a defendant iswho tried for person another crime. This is because the fact that a proof has committed one offense is not has com- mitted another and testimony because the effect such upon prejudice is nevertheless bound to create part against and an emotional reaction on their the de- fendant.” Maxey expressed principle
Chief Justice the same law case of Commonwealth v. DePofi, 229: “At common evidence of the law, commission of a distinct crime admissible in the absence of *17 a connection between the two crimes. This is still the Pennsylvania. law This Court said in Common- (1932), wealth v. Pa. Williams, 160 A. 602: “There can little doubt that the admission of a very strongly conviction trenches on the funda- mental rule of evidence that a distinct crime uncon- in evidence cannot be given trial that on
nected with ” on trial.’ the crime proof a prisoner against statement Opinion its ends Majority chosen” re- District Attorney’s “badly despite one.” a just was obviously rendered “the verdict marks, the verdict was I whether knowing have no way Prom that from the record. except just one not, receive did not the defendant I say record would under the Con- entitled fair trial to which and the of this Commonwealth and the laws stitution remains the verdict Therefore, decisions this Court. Since trial. I new grant Therefore, tainted. I, dissent. therefore refuses to do this, the Majority dissenting opinion. in this joins Mr. Justice Jones District School Public Education Board of Philadelphia, Appellant, Beilan.