*2 J., EAGEN, O’BRIEN, Before JONES, C. ROB- POMEROY, ERTS, MANDERINO, NIX and JJ. THE
OPINION OF COURT O’BRIEN, Justice. by May was convicted
On
Harold Daniels
a
degree,
first
judge, sitting
jury, of
in the
with a
murder
aggravated
conspiracy, arising out of
robbery, and
George,
stabbing
February 8, 1970,
on
of Francis
death
Pennsylvania.
University
Post-trial
student at
motions were
en banc and
denied
a court
imprisonment.
reversed
This court
sentenced to life
arrested
ruling
had been
conviction with
that Daniels
probable
confession was
without
his
cause
sup
product
illegal
been
should have
arrest and
pressed.
new trial. Com
The case
for a
was remanded
(1974).
Daniels,
552,
In and statement Di- Cephas not within the rationale ane Jones does fall person ini- First, two Jones was the who reasons. police tially called informed them that “Dead nickname) Leg” (Daniels’ homi- may have committed the This information to Daniels’ resi- cide. led preparing dence, the time din- where Diane Jones was at Second, voluntarily ner. Diane Jones went *4 voluntarily headquarters with Daniels and thereafter gave the in- question. the now in In statement is Cephas, case, unlike the witness in stant present calling was her the because of direct actions anonymous voluntarily “tip”, with an and accom- panying appellee police headquarters giving the of her free will. on these a statement own Based testimony facts, the of Diane does not fall within Jones Cephas Having the names of the the decided rationale. properly, we above-mentioned witnesses were secured led of the witnesses that also find that any further or witnesses is also admissible. evidence proceedings con- for
Order reversed. remanded Case opinion. sistent with this dissenting opinion
ROBERTS, in which J., filed J., MANDERINO, joined. part or de-
JONES, J., no in the consideration C. took of this cision case.
ROBERTS, (dissenting). Justice by superficial astray its apparently majority, The led case, con- has the facts of this failed consideration of appeal, whether issue of this sider threshold proceedings, stage remains, at this suppression by stipulation it in the entered bound erroneously majority considers thus court.1 Because the question has satisfied whether the Commonwealth admissibility challenged evi- proving the burden of stipulation, I regard to the dissent. dence without by Dan- George Harold was stabbed to death Francis February 8, Philadelphia on and John West iels Rush investigation police began Philadelphia an 1970. Donald Patterson of Lieutenant under direction description Schimpf. general A Joseph Detective anonymous telephone eyewitness and an assailants an In investigation on Daniels. “tip” to focus caused the Court, by stating: majority “This on Octo- this issue avoids 8, 1974, prose- stipulation into between ber vacated entered eviden- case for an counsel and remanded the cution tiary defense hearing Supra at appellee’s motion.” on merely “Petition remand n. 1. The October order stated: eight order supplemental evidentiary hearing granted.” This word majority’s we vacated way supports assertion that in no at request us. infra stipulation. before See not even Such *5 528 early evening February 11, police of two officers
went home Daniels’ and arrested In Daniels’ him. girlfriend, home at the time of his arrest his was Jones, police knowledge prior of whom the had no sought permission time. Ms. Jones to ac- and received company brought Daniels Daniels. Both and Jones were Building. the Police Administration early evening February
Between the of 11 and mid- morning February 12, of a series events ensued whose of chronological relationship order each other al- and are impossible tangled extremely most to discern from the Throughout period interrogated record. Daniels was subjected polygraph to one or and more examinations. during par- At some time night Daniels his admitted ticipation killing George implicated in the and John accomplice. police Rush as his immediately arrested Rush; interrogation after his com- he also admitted plicity.2 addition, po- In Ms. who remained at headquarters lice period, questioned the entire was early Detective Ellis At some time in the Verb. morning, gave Ms. Jones formal statement implicated Daniels. given
From the by Daniels, Rush, statements and Jones,3 learned the murder location of the weapon and the persons names of informa- certain with concerning tion persons Those Michael crime. are Francis, Presley, Anthony Rush, Alexander Drain, Charles McEachin. charged murder, robbery, with con-
spiracy. May, At his in trial the Commonwealth confession, introduced into evidence Daniels’ the murder weapon, Drain, Francis, Presley, and the and McEachin that had Daniels admitted to them that he George robbery. stabbed in the course of a Daniels was Rush, (1974). See Commonwealth v. 459 Pa. 340 A.2d Precisely what was learned from each when and how it among disputes was learned are central this case. charges convicted all and sentenced to term of life imprisonment. *6 appealed
He
to this Court. We held that Daniels’ ar
probable
rest
illegal,
was without
cause
therefore
and
product
and that his confession was the
of the arrest and
therefore should not have been admitted into evidence.
We
for
remanded
a new trial. Commonwealth v. Dan
iels,
Following remand, the sup- Daniels filed a motion to press testimony the weapon murder and the of Diane Jones, Rush, Francis, John Presley, Michael An- Michael thony Rush, Drain, Alexander and Charles McEachin. argued that weapon the of learned the and the and, they witnesses thus, a result of his confession products were illegal sup- derivative of the arrest. A pression hearing April 25, was held on Com- The evidence, entering monwealth offered the no into instead following stipulation: Francis, identities of the witnesses
“[T]he Michael Presley, Blood, also known as Alexander Drain, Anthony Rush, McEachin, Rush, John Charles and the existence of the knife were dis- to the solely closed entirely Commonwealth as a result given by of the police, statement the Daniels to by and which suppressed statement has been Su- the ” preme Pennsylvania of Court . . . . May 13, 1974, granting On the court an order entered suppress testimony Daniels’ motion to knife ap- of the named The witnesses. Commonwealth filed an peal docketing appeal, After of Court. petition alleging a filed Attorney [suppression]
“the District in the Assistant stipu- proceeding mistakenly . . . into entered a solely repre- result of lation of facts as a erroneous . .” sentations . . counsel] [Daniels’ petition requested the court to the case remand hearing. supplemental evidentiary Daniels’ filed counsel any mis- denying that he petition made an answer to the had entered representations or that the Commonwealth misrepresenta- any on stipulation the basis into peti- 8, granted 1974, the Court tions. On October hearing. the case for tion and remanded 13, hearing on November court held a refused to hear evidence The court believing stipulation, task concerning entry of the underlying question of the determination to be inde- had a basis evidence whether the Commonwealth’s of- pendent The Commonwealth confession. Daniels’ Patterson, Schimpf, officers fered the January 28, 1975, the Verb, Brown, and Bacher. On following containing report conclusions: filed court *7 of the existence police first The learned “6. giv- following from statements witnesses names of the Head- taken Homicide en after Harold Daniels February 11,1970: quarters on “From Diane Jones: Francis
Michael Blood) Presley (Preston, Michael Anthony Rush Drain
Alexander Daniels
Harold Daniels: “From Harold Rush John Francis
Michael (Presley) Preston
Anthony Rush McEachin
Charles Police al- mentioned, but was also Diane Jones ready of her. knew Rush: John
“From Drain
Alexander al- mentioned, the Police but was also Diane Jones ready of her. knew Jones, Harold
“7. The statements given each oth- independently were and John Rush er.” question perceives for decision to the sole majority obtained
be “whether the names of certain witnesses result from Diane a witness was found who as the illegal search, poisonous of an are the fruit of the tree ig- and thus at It has thus inadmissible.” Ante stip- nored the issue of the effect of factual threshold weapon ulation that witnesses were and the named “solely entirely” and confes- derived from arrest may sion of I that, Daniels.4 conclude be whatever during relieving party stipulations standards for of his proceeding in entered, improper which it is it is to al- particular litigation low the pursue Commonwealth to strategy open that includes a in deliberate admission court represented and, that facts are as when that strategy fails, hopes have a second chance it with what bewill strategy. more successful suppression
At the hearing April 25, the Common- present wealth chose any not to testimony, stipu- instead lating facts, to the apparently legal rely content to on its argument question evidence was admissible notwithstanding illegal its derivation from an arrest. disagreed. Following suppres- court sion filing order appeal Court, and the of an in this *8 attempted Commonwealth decided that it should have to prove the existence of independent acqui- an basis for its challenged sition of the evidence. majority’s
4. The formulation of the issue for decision also fails to suppression deal with the whole Accepting order. for the mo- suppression ment the January court’s conclusions of most the that the have could learned from was the exis- Diane Jones Francis, Rush, tence of Presley, Anthony Michael Al- and suppression exander Drain. But the order the murder included Rush, weapon McEachin, and the of Charles John and majority Jones herself. Since the with fails to deal that portion order, of apparently the it to intends affirm the order to that extent. general that, surely absent some extraor-
It is the rule oppor- dinary justification, party only one and one has tunity proof. The carry to his burden Commonwealth of admissibility proving carry once its burden of failed to ought to compelling justification, not be and, absent a sought permitted try again. that to Commonwealth stipulation by its the was erro- second chance claim that another it to neous and that circumstance entitled carry that, under opportunity its I assume to burden. circumstances, showing certain that Commonwealth stipu- laboring of an erroneous under constraint opportunity. How- lation it to second would entitle that ever, concluding proceeding, entry after of an order judi- integrity fairness of defendant and showing process my view, include require, cial in that the proof dili- exercised that reasonable Commonwealth rea- gence attempting facts that it to learn the sonably misrepresentation of relied on defense counsel’s the facts. showing some of believed that sort
The Commonwealth necessary relief for here was similar to that articulated its alleged petition that it in its stipulation, its from stipulation re- “as a “mistakenly” attorney entered the representations of” counsel. defense sult of erroneous petition granted the Commonwealth’s this Court When evidentiary the matter for and remanded an on October 8 permit only hearing, the Common- it could been have which prove the existence of circumstances wealth to stipulation. It is clear relief its would entitle it to from justify- proof may not, absent that stipulations ing circumstances, simply discard proof. carry its opportunity burden have second prove circum- surely And it not the existence of those did were stances in this Court. All we had before us allegation That we Daniels’ denial. Commonwealth’s petition somehow determined from the and answer beyond plainly justifying existed is circumstances only open possibility. realm course to us was *9 hearing evidentiary in which the Com- for an remand necessary attempt prove for the facts could to monwealth entitlement to relief. imagine Common- for me to how the
It is difficult prove The now- entitlement to relief. could its wealth police learn of disputed the came to facts concern how Why the the of certain witnesses. Common- existence attorney not, could in the exercise of reasonable wealth’s diligence, his own have the file and formulated examined reasonably facts, re- of the he could have view how pecu- representation lied on defense counsel’s of matters liarly knowledge mysteries the the are to within event, majority’s unsupport- any contrary me. In to the assertion, designed permit our able remand was the attempt necessary Commonwealth to make the show- ing. misper-
However, purpose hearing since the by suppression court, ceived the the Commonwealth and proof the jus- record remains barren of of circumstances tifying stipulation. relief from Consequently, the the specify- stipulation remains its Commonwealth bound knowledge ing of the mur- the sole basis con- weapon tainted was Daniels’ der witnesses fession. enti- is appeal, therefore, the Commonwealth
On prove its opportunity than a second to no more tled majority, stipulation. The to relief from entitlement stipulation from however, releases entitlement, reaches showing necessary without regard Commonwealth, without question whether admissibility, reverses proven stipulation, has majority has far my view, the In order. and, appellate proper review bounds of exceeded pro- judicial integrity doing so, impeached the has Therefore, I cess. dissent. dissenting opinion. J.,
MANDERINO, joins in this *10 OPINION OF SUPPLEMENTAL THE COURT PER CURIAM: Pleas of Common remanded to Court
Case hearing evidentiary determina Philadelphia for an by defense stipulation entered into whether the tion of enforce an is a valid and and the Commonwealth counsel stipulation. able
368 A.2d Pennsylvania COMMONWEALTH v. WALKER, Appellant.
Walter Pennsylvania. Supreme Court Oct. Submitted Decided Jan.