*1 ger, actual impact occurred in lane the northbound of the highway.
The justified under all these finding, plus the decedent circumstances, presumption that Cleavenger used due there was no contribu- care, tory negligence the case.
The record gives no support the trial con- court’s clusion that Cleavenger was as a guilty matter of law of contributory negligence and it refutes court’s conclusion that was free of Zebraskey negligence.
..Judgment reversed and record disposi- remanded tion of the defendants’ motion for a pending trial. new If a trial new is refused the court below will forthwith enter judgment on plaintiff the verdict. Appellant.
Commonwealth v. Evans, March Argued 14, 1960. Before C. J., Bell, Jones, Bok JJ. Musmanno, Jones, Eagen, *2 him David R. S. G. with Stutzman, Kohn, & Adler & Kohn, Lewis Stutzman, SidoriaJc, Schatt, appellant. for Thomas J. Evans, appel- David J. for Clayton Conroy, Landsidle, lant. Frederick for Compton
Earl V. G. McGavin, appellant. Charles W. Stickler, Ernest him James R. Stewart, Jr., S. with Burch, d F. Tor- Shissler James Nauman, Rail, Smith, rance, appellant. F. Gen- Special
Ruette Deputy Dowling, Attorney E. Assistant District At- him Mary Roerner, eral, Vincent Assistant G. Attorney General, Panati, torney, P. Martin Filippone, Deputy Attorney General, Alfred District and Anne X. Attor- Attorney, Alpern, R. Lock, appellee. for Commonwealth, ney General, Opinion April 21, 1960: Per Curiam, Superior order and of the are judgments Court of on the President re- opinion Judge affirmed Rhodes, Superior at Ct. 179. ported took no in the considera- part Mr. Justice Cohen this case. or decision of tion Dissenting Opinion Concurring Mr. Bell: Justice on Common- perpetrated fraud
A gigantic the construc- in connection with of Pennsylvania wealth of Extension a the Northeastern part tion a people number Turnpike, Pennsylvania Evans, sentenced. convicted and duly have been and Torrance, former Commission, Chairman former Secretary-Treasurer former member and indictments separate on convicted Avere Commission, others in office and of Avith conspiracy of misbehavior Com- Turnpike defraud the Pennsylvania cheat and reversed the mission. The Superior unanimously Court on the of misbehavior charge conviction of Torrance of one Paul J. sentence judgment reversed office, the indictment and by McNeill on charging conspiracy, to three sustained a conviction Evans, vote of four *3 Torrance and two others on the conspiracy charge. crime of for defendants
The which these conspiracy “arose out of a contract were convicted principally dated the commission and between 28, 1955, February al., 190 Evans et Manu-Mine.” v. Commonwealth 195. The of the contract Superior 179, Ct. purpose for the provide support was surface right-of-way of the Turnpike the Northeastern Extension across the anthracite coal the use of regions material by slushing ;the into mine voids underlying roadway area, appropriated land had been the Commission for. by of the part Northeast Highway.
The in these questions, basic involved are appeals Was the (1) two-fold: Commonwealth’s evidence legal- prove reasonable doubt ly beyond sufficient each these defendants particular was crim- guilty inal this perpetrate conspiracy fraud; (2) Did the admission of Paul’s constitute reversible error? contract of
The February made 28, 1955, by Commission and Manu-Mine was first Company nego- approved Turnpike by tiated Commission’s 390 contract
engineers. then approved was by then counsel consulting Commission’s engineers, repre- 14 other Commission, finally by people the Commonwealth. All least senting of these at men, first appear at be as innocent or blush, guilty Torrance.
It Commonwealth the de- theory fendants had conspired defraud the Commission by and that obtaining and slush- contract, drilling recommended Manu-Mine ing'program in fact and that unnecessary, price drilling 95% excessive and unconscionably fraudulent, especially since Manu-Mine had represented the contract cost foot per had been on drilling computed basis of the cost cent plus per profit.
The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission was com- on posed February 28, Tor- Evans, Chairman, rance, McSorley (succeeding Chairman) and Lawler therafter (who shortly became Acting Chairman), Watson. Manu-Mine or its officers and Company stock- holders made a from profit this contract with the Com- mission estimated variously at from 4 to 10 million Evans’ dollars. term June expired 1955. All of the Commissioners Watson (except who was de- dead) nied that had committed they any fraud, denied any conspiracy knowledge thereof, denied any and all Of the five wrong-doing. Commissioners only Evans *4 and Torrance were or or accused, arrested, indicted for and fraud-. conspiracy
Torrance’s Appeal testified in of Lawler behalf the Commonwealth: “Q. Do mean to tell you us voted for did you and of vote for the contract and the the of awarding doing the work without what was involved? knowing [Law- ler visited had the scene of the actually and the work,
391 Secretary had had a his Highways representative of and 14 department different assigned peo- work, ple had each approved received Manu- payment by I the depended upon I de- legal counsel, Mine.] pended our upon our depended upon engineering staff, That is consulting, engineers. the has Turnpike why retained these people advise and instruct us Com- missioners.” as This, Torrance testified, exactly voted, explanation and the reason for the why as did contract, and Lawler, McSorley Watson. Evans and were successful McSorley business the other men; members Commission were experienced poli- tics had public held office. No one and pretends no one could contend successfully McSorley Lawler Watson were dupes Torrance. as his gave
Lawler for his explanation approval the contract not only proper justifiable reason, but answer that an honest man could give. Public officials must frequently rely upon depu their ties and assistants. These officials held cannot be responsible for criminally or even negligence, criminal acts of their deputies and assistants under circumstances such these. We must never forget cannot prove Commonwealth a criminal case by suspicion it must conjecture; prove evidence by facts circumstances are of such a nature as to establish quality each guilt of defendant a reasonable doubt. beyond Commonwealth v. Kloiber, 378 Pa. A. 2d 412, 106 Commonwealth 820; v. Sauders, Pa. 134 A. 2d Commonwealth v. Krav 890; A. 2d 861. 198, 161 itz, The contract was negotiated the Commission by Paul. its Torrance engineer voted for the contract with Manu-Mine dated February as did all 28, 1955, the other members after it Commission, ap- we proved, Commission’s repeat, engineers, Commission’s counsel for consulting engineers, by *5 14 other Commission, people representing the Commonwealth. There is no evidence absolutely the Commissioners or any suggested dictated of its terms or even saw the any proposed prior contract at which it was hearing approved.
What did Torrance or do criminal? wrong he And what did do that was different from Law- what and Watson who were never accused ler, McSorley did, or indicted for this crime? The evi- wrongdoing dence of substance Torrance whatsoever convict was:
(1) That Manu-Mine its officers Company and/or no with which he had con- stockholders, absolutely nection a mil- directly made profit indirectly, $4 lion dollars; (2) That “On December 21,1954 Torrance received *
from Stickler a Christmas certificate gift which on used 5,1955 suit of May purchase clothes.” Ob not viously repre but only unethical, highly hensible. it doesn’t as the However, prove, Common wealth that he argues, co-conspirator Evans, Landsidle Stickler, and others to defraud the Turnpike Commission of millions of dollars;
(3) That who is a built a trench Torrance, farmer, in an silo old on his farm at a quarry cost of approxi- Stickler him mately saw at the $500. farm show and asked him to him to permit insert on the which was silo, then built already ready new use, type wall Manu-Mine hoped to market for silos. Torrance, in the light foolishly accepted hindsight, this offer; and Torrance invited photographers and newspaper to his men farm see this wall which had been put up Manu-Mine. Pictures and information about Tor- rance’s silo wall that Manu-Mine was the builder * engineers acquitted One of the who was television received a present a as Christmas from Stickler in set' 19S4. were published in National Farm Journals, newspapers *6 and magazines throughout Pennsylvania. of the theory Commonwealth was it could
not possibly have been defrauded of á to 10 million dollars unless and Evans Torrance conspired with others to enable Manu-Mine or its officers and stock holders to amake colossal illegally fraudulent profit on project. If Torrance engineering was a conspirator an indispensable master to absolutely party If Torrance was to conspiracy. enable other going per sons to make of of millions dollars out this contract, to isn’t reason and all experience human contrary so that he do for a would Christmas and present $200 * outer silo a wall? The publicly exposed unnecessary * drawn, distinction, is line between is the where What having proper public le- a and those acts conduct of officials and pub- legislation coming gitimate before the or in matters interest proper body? public which are and acts or What conduct lic official Country improper? shocked and was startled which are The. and gifts public large dur- by newspaper officials secret to revelations of similarly Country ing shocked Administration. The the Truman gifts Assistant Presidential loans a the revelation of secret or every during are revelations Administration. There Eisenhower public open State of National and secret entertainment of and week pleas by trips, yachting parties plane Senators officials, and friendly constituent Congressmen for television stations for and private public and television entertainment State, of and their Pennsylvania Legislature given gifts members of sets and legis- having companies adjourns by persons or business or when — public public bodies. With or or such officials lation with before charged relevant, exceptions were here none of these men not two conspiracy misdemeanor or or or indicted crime arrested proper between what is crime. line in office or for Where is high time, im- improper Isn’t it isn’t it what criminal? and protect public men perative honest officials and in order to honest adopted having be forthwith them that code ethics business with may everyone sus- of accusations or know—without fear so rights limitations, picions are is honest his whát —what dishonest, improper, proper legitimate criminal!
logical inference be from Torrance’s drawn use of the gift certificate is that he not a member of the con- If he spiracy. was even suspicious scheme existed defraud the conspiracy Commonwealth of millions of would in the dollars, his he, light age joined as one reputation, its conspiracy two indispensable master or even sus- crooks, permitted picion pointed be at him for the sake of a suit of clothes? Isn’t the only reasonable inference can be drawn from his of the acceptance gift certificate, that he knew or its nothing fraudu- conspiracy lent scheme?
It is equally unreasonable and to contend illogical *7 that Torrance’s acceptance and of a new publicizing of wall type which Manu-Mine to market hoped silos a prove beyond reasonable doubt that he conspired to swindle and defraud the 4 Commonwealth of to 10 million not for but for the sole dollars, bene- himself, fit of its officers Manu-Mine, and with stockholders, which he had no connection directly indirectly. When a intends or person plans to commit a he crime, it about goes clandestinely attempts and to hide from both his public one identity his every acts of could which be linked to the crime. he does Certainly not to the as Torrance his publicize world, silo did, wall that it was built and can be from bought Manu- Mines. Instead of evidence in being behalf of the Com- monwealth Torrance prove it guilty is more fraud, reasonable and logical say demonstrates not a crime. Yet these party were the on two rocks which Commonwealth built its entire case. This the evidence which the Commonwealth is contends sufficient sustain legally the conviction reasonable doubt of a 70 beyond year old man who all his life has had an outstanding reputation honesty.
395 In practices light prevailing Harrisburg some of reprehen- consider Washington, but none which are considered sible, criminal, especially in amount of these view trifling gifts in comparison with the multi-million profits dollar which Torrance enabled allegedly Manu- fraudulently Mines to will the law obtain, allow Commonwealth it proved say reasonable doubt beyond one of the two master alleged crooks was of this guilty multi-million dollar fraudulent swindle because he took as his share of the 4 million dollar loot a Christ- $200 mas certificate and a gift advertised unneces- publicly on wall sary unrealistic, his silo? How $500 all deference to due how ridiculous can others, we be?
In Commonwealth v. Kloiber, 412, 2d said 820, (pages Court . is 427): . 426, settled that a man clearly may be convicted on circum- stantial evidence his alone, provided proved guilt be- a reasonable doubt: . yond . . . The [citing cases] circumstantial evidence in this case facts and [i.e., circumstances proved Commonwealth v. Bausewine, 354 Pa. 46 A. 2d is not such “as reasonably 491] an naturally inference justify guilt . . . and of accused, such volume and as to quality overcome the presumption innocence and satisfy the of the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt”: *8 [citing cases].’”
In Commonwealth v. Bausewine, supra, Court, conviction reversing bribery and discharging the said defendant, “The (pages 40-41): ad- duced the Commonwealth is weak inconclu- . sive. . .
“The burden devolved the upon Commonwealth the overcome presumption defendant’s innocence and a reasonable establish, beyond the fact he that doubt, had accepted money influence him as a officer police to act rules of contrary known honesty integrity.
396 adduced is wholly the mere fact that the evidence While case is not fatal Commonwealth’s circumstantial A. 2d Pa. 39 350 DePetro, 567, 577, v. (Commonwealth must be guilt it must remembered be 838), yet inference The reasonable conjectured. and not proved on conditions proved; must based facts and be guilt These do on or surmise. suspicion it cannot rest solely facts and circum- The place testimony. not take in order to warrant conviction, stances proved must, not of the defendant, such as to establish guilt be his inno- incompatible with ... as being absolutely cir- at least a reasonable doubt. but beyond cence, reason- not such ‘as evidence in this case is cumstantial an inference of guilt to justify ably naturally quality . and of such of the . . volume accused, satisfy of innocence and presumption to overcome the a reasonable the accused’s guilt beyond jury 142 Pa. Ct. Superior Marino, doubt’: v. Commonwealth 346 Pa. Libonati, A. 2d v. 314; 16 Commonwealth 327, Pa. 350 Holt, 31 A. 2d Commonwealth v. 95; 504, 508, 387.” 375, v. 399,
In
Rogozinski,
Commonwealth
: “‘The
402)
require
said (page
A. 2d
Court
in order to
conviction
of the law is that
warrant
ment
of such
must be
proved
circumstances
the facts and
of the accused be
[prove]
.
guilt
character as to . .
.
.
doubt
reasonable doubt
.
yond any
incon
“be so
the evidence
weak
unless
of fact
matter of
no probability
as a
law
clusive that
circumstances”.’:
from the combined
can be drawn
31 A. 2d
cient fraudulent conspiracy crime of doubt the judgment I am convinced convicted.
397 and he should be Torrance arrested should be against discharged! Appeal
Evans’s appeal. I turn Evans’s Commonwealth’s now it if as was adequate believed, evidence more than all the Judges Evans. However, to convict by jury, and I Superior certainly agree, Court agreed, during of trial errors committed a number were 4 to this a vote Superior 3, trial. The Court, harmless as the errors to whether were disagreed I find errors. were so as be reversible prejudicial one of them.* to discuss necessary an error- and I believe that realistically practically trial considering less would have been impossible, 4 June which length trial, began nature 5000 totaled over 1957. The testimony ended July 25, pages. 198 A. v. 330 Fugmann, 99,
In Commonwealth unanimous speaking Court, Justice Maxey, Chief or civil “There is seldom criminal 18) any said : (page into record of or duration magnitude trial of and immaterial irrelevant, incompetent some which has been subsequently does not ‘creep’ it.’ instructed ‘disregard out’ and the jury ‘stricken * they appeals questions me, bothered in these Some Judge Superior obviously Court. President Rhodes bothered the pages. Judge opinion of an exhaustive able Woodside wrote concurring dissenting opinion, ana- in which he an able wrote important questions lyzed particularity several of with more Judge an likewise wrote Torrance and Evans. Watkins raised problems baffling opinion, especially connection with able flushing an regions, with which and subsidence in the coal he Judge experienced expert a considerable also devoted Watkins opinion page part indict- elaborate of his reasons Torrance, charged were ment conviction Evans solely unnecessary points. political. I deem to consider these *10 398
To new trials such occurred grant whenever thing mean would an interminable and intolerable succession trials. new There is no standard which the effect by of such ‘sterilized’ on the formally testimony minds the can jury be In the gauged. law intends that theory no shall have logical but a effect on testimony any jurors’ in all minds; has practice, nearly testimony both a and a logical effect in psychological varying ratios. The intends that no law witness’s testimony jurors’ shall make any appeal except the reasoning in actual faculties; witness’s practice, testimony makes sometimes more an appeal to the emotions than to the reason.”
It impossible to is, believe, humanly set up a test or standard can demonstrate or definitely mathematical whether a certainty was able to jury its eliminate from mind and certain decision, incompe tent that evidence whether evidence was of such nature and character the instruc notwithstanding tions or admonitions of trial the it Judge, remained in and influenced and prejudiced their minds. The best definition of a harmless error is that given Justice Justice) Horace (former Chief in Common Stern, wealth v. 362 Neill, Pa. 67 2d 507, in dis 276, where, effect an the improper cussing suggestion made by the District to the effect that defendant Attorney had to commit an act of sexual attempted the perversion, said Court “. . . (page 517): the question irre itself, spective its form, was highly because reprehensible, there in whatever the nothing to indi cate that such offense had been committed or at the learned trial tempted. in However, vigorous Judge, admonished language, jury from their expunge had minds what thus been intimated, and cautioned credence them to no but to give exclude it wholly from their consideration. The test in such cases is have whether the been so jury may strongly influenced such an insinuation improper introduction their could not be likely it on minds effect of instruction to disre- subsequent court’s dispelled by it: gard 17-20, Commonwealth v. Fugmann, not do present 198 A. 107. In we 99, 106, instance have so believe could been influenced, there no must realized they immediately Be this basis for District Attorney’s ‘suggestion’. it is of the es- safe conclude view may, that, in- even admitted, tablished, atrocity crime, cident not a factor determina- contributing *11 tion of the penalty.” to best that can is Judge
The do any conscientiously test case where the of harm- question this in each apply is less or and reversible error raised. prejudicial as one of the conspir- John D. Paul was indicted Paul’s before the Grand (which ators. testimony Jury that it was so covered lengthy approximately in this trial was admitted and was read in full pages) or to the under the that it was confession theory admission interest and there- against was so-called him. It not a fore admissible was against certainly it and it is likewise questionable confession whether an interest. against admission rose height The vice of Paul’s Grand acquitted. Jury Paul was it incom- (1) contained highly was two-fold: testimony and his hearsay testimony, guesses, petent testimony, it conjectures conclusions, (2) inferences, in to Evans. Paul’s testimony prejudicial highly other defendants, incriminate the to an attempt reality order to determine how highly Evans. In particularly incompetent of Paul’s grossly to some Evans prejudicial therefrom: excerpts I few quote shall was, to time- consideration “Q. Have you given September 1953, 25th, August liness of A. Frank- later occurred? that have of events the light Q. it seem I had not. Does of this minute as no, ly, this you minute that there is any significance to attach to those two periods time? A. There might Q. have been. What have might been? A. It might have been in not somebody’s mind; certainly mine. Q. what been Well, might have mind that anyone’s think of you can at point this that incite might your curiosity? curiosity now has been My developed somewhat we will call coincidence, those it, insofar two as perhaps later dates, activities Manu- Mine have been might concerned in somebody’s mind. Q. What are mind we at this thinking moment, sir, that attractive at particularly your thinking moment; what mind would be attracted to? A. you mind that I would know be at all might interested in Manu-Mine be would Mr. Chairman Evans, Q. of the Commission. .: . What would have entailed if possibly had you given such consideration to those thoughts would have come through your mind? A. Well, would have been undoubtedly told rather that, maybe none of broadly, my Q. like that. business, something In order convey it to the Grand we have do it what Jury, through you were We thinking. convey words, *12 have done it you Do think very descriptively. you this awas conclusion that foregone Mr. Stickler was going in this all operate field and do could was you go it? A. extent along with what Mr. Stickler Well, I received, was think that that awas pretty foregone conclusion that he . .. A. . . . get would job, someone besides Mr. believe it was Mr. Tor- Evans, ‘Don’t think question we you ought was: rance, Department to do about the of Mines on something Q. Who made sir? A. I case?’ believe statement, Q. . . . What Mr. Evans’ it Mr. Torrance. was was Torrance’s don’t reaction to Mr. A. we inquiry? ‘No, Q. Mr. the De- ... Evans did not want that.’ want Q. did he? A. No. of Mines in this matter, partment That was pretty understood definitely it? you, A. I had that Q. impression. ... did con- Why you clude that Mr. Evans didn’t the Department want Mines involved in this? A. I don’t Well, actually think I examined his motive so at the time. thinking Q. Save since you time examined it? A. IOh, thought about it a deal great in the six past or eight Q. months. What has been the conclusion that your has resolved thinking sir? A. into, this: Simply itself That the Department of Mines has in its presumably possession or in its record a full of maps of all supply mining work; and that information should be available alone. the question of Now, whether De- employ partment of Mines whether could be personnel, or done is another quite not, story, mind my then. Since then it been has, course, we done, mean employed the Commission paid their as- —I So that it no sisting personnel. doubt would have been Q. just possible earlier as it was later. Let’s give it a little more I be- validity, sir, conclusion, lieve. Isn’t this a fact: If the Department Mines had been consulted have done has al- just would what done and there Manu-Mine wouldn’t be con- ready Q. tract? A. I believe that is a fair statement. In other Manu-Mine couldn’t have into con- words, gone that more than million had been on if paid tract $10 of Mines isn’t Department had been consulted, Q. I think so. there- that a conclusion? A. So, fair of Mines Department didn’t want Mr. fore, Evans, That clear did he? A. involved in this matter, Q. of Mines had Department to me. So if the enough not have been nephew Mr. Evans’ would involved, been I think that is true too. right? involved, Do Q. sir. have why, you . We want know . . I can reason for that? A. to ascribe reason might thought Mr. Evans to that is that ascribe *13 sooner up perhaps the contract set I get that would had a that; maybe than Mr. like Stone, something in the his mind at the time. purpose special back Q. What that have been? A. Well, probably could back another could have been purpose I the man who be would, say, his mind was that was order at out his it that put least, carry duped, way, or, Q. other or have now to his satisfaction. In words, you think that he more might concluded that Mr. Evans did contract of February 28, have handle the easily you I conclude than Stone? A. would Roger Mr. Q. There isn’t there, sir, sir. is that, reason, yes, Q. most of human conduct? A. bit Correct. every have had that as a You have ascribed reason, you sir? A. to reflect have an on it, you not, opportunity Q. considered this after- opinion sir. That is Yes, your Q. Did it? I think isn’t A. so. ... Yes, sir, noon, at that Evans did not want conclude that time Mr. you other in there there drillers because would any amount of on that work competitive been bidding foot that per have contrasted which Avould $12.50 I A. At this would juncture Manu-Mine making? Q. further Isn’t that the reason no yes. why say into that area? Didn’t Mr. Evans drillers brought were if make it clear to other driller was you pretty a question in there be might concerning there brought foot? A. that much per very would gather $12.50 competitive like that if anything bidding clearly, be reduced. That figure might accomplished Q. con- sir. would opinion; yes, Therefore, you my the instruction to from that Mr. Evans gave clude isn’t ahead and and drill drill, regardless cost, go Q. Other than that, sir. ... right? Yes, the influence that Mr. Evans exerted felt you for renegotiation? motive behind this contract primary Q. no doubt about that. And from there is A. Yes, had Did he have Mr. Evans no redress? you decision by his under thumb, your opinion, other Commissioners *14 had the heads? Mr. as he Evans as department said He have dominated the Commission. what he got to wanted and that refers the other members of the one method or another. by Commission Some- well, to whatever he do the agreed how wanted Commission to do.” of the to Paul questions
Some the propounded it District so is aston- outrageous were Attorney ask a such an able ishing lawyer would witness for his and inferences, conjectures conclu- guesses, the hindsight. sions, light especially Although the it is Commonwealth contends clear and otherwise, undisputable infra) reliance (see placed great this to upon of Paul link forge testimony necessary in the of Torrance and conviction Evans. particularly
The trial the and told Judge wisely fairly jury this admissible and testimony only against Paul, should not be considered other against the defendants.
I have noted the this lengths great Court, Supreme the particularly Court United States, goes basic protect rights defendants to a fair trial in accordance with our Constitution, even though defendants are hardened, dangerous criminals long prior record of convic- felony It tions. seems to that at me least the same concern should be exercised and the same protection should be afforded to men who up splendid now enjoyed reputations in this as is given to Commonwealth, criminals; hardened On the basis of these decisions the admission of Paul’s Grand testimony Jury —which contains so much that was outrageously incompetent so much that was highly prejudicial Evans— constituted incurable reversible error.
Moreover, difficulty actually separating it from apparent strikingly “split-verdict” recent Act L. December P. 1621. 1, 1959, Even more impor- tantly, difficulty separating these dispelling damaging incriminatory terribly guesses and inferences expressed against aptly conclusions Evans is concurring pinpointed exceedingly able emphasize Judge opinion dissenting Woodside: “To impossible for the to follow Court’s how testimony, [Paul’s] need not to we instruction use opinion its used over note that the itself in court stating while 700 words review Paul’s *15 upon of to sustain the conviction facts it relied which appellants. argument before this the in the Even Attorney District' made extensive use of the Court, support Jury testimony the convic- Paul’s Grand to appellants, particularly tion of the Evans. If the judge attorney to the district continue use Paul’s and ap- testimony argue guilt to determine the and proof pellants, testi- it is conclusive to me Paul’s ignored jury possibly mony the could not have been upon appellants’ passing guilt. in the against testimony the “The evil of the of this use appellants (1) opportunity they no to had opportu- (2) they no accuser; cross-examine their had nity contradict in rebuttal said about to what was (3) they object opportunity no to had to them; and prevent hearsay incompetent the use other testi- of grand mony given by jury. Paul to the The unfair- requires glaring ness this is so and so basic that it of granting At a the new trial. new Paul could trial, testify be called as Commonwealth witness and could testimony grand contained in his before the facts appellants’ they are relevant to the so eases. far right then the to cross- The defendants would testimony examine him to rebut untruthful judge trial the and to have the limit appellants competent. give the This which is would they trial are and enable the fair entitled, to obtain those conviction Commonwealth guilty.” to be evidence would show whom the. I statement above agree with wholeheartedly it is unfortunate Woodside. While Judge very has in judg- a case of this magnitude my be retried, law and the preservation ment, safeguarding and due liberty Constitutional guarantees that a demands process are Justice paramount, new trial Evans. be granted and sen- judgment would therefore reverse the trial.
tence in his new against Evans and direct, case, Landsidle Paul’s references Stickler and were from different in kind and his incriminat- degree very Evans references to incompetent ing glaringly errors. I concur at harmless constituted, most, respect appeals Stickler opinion Court’s and of Landsidle. Benjamin joins R. Con-
Mr. Justice Jones Opinion. curring Dissenting Prager, Appellant, v. McAdam. *16 J., 1960. Before C. March Jones,
Submitted JJ. Musmanno, Bok and Eagen, Jones, Cohen, Bell,