*1 Pеnnsylvania COMMONWEALTH of LEE, Appellant (two cases). Thomas Supreme Court Pennsylvania.
Argued 21, 1977. Oct.
Decided Dec. 1977. Jokelsоn, Neil E. Philadelphia, for appellant. Goldblatt, H. Dist. Steven Atty., Emmett Fitzpatrick, F. Stiles, Atty., Dist. Asst. Law, Michael R. Atty. Dist. Dep. Philadеlphia, E. Div., Nugent, William Chief, Appeals appellee. *2 O’BRIEN, ROBERTS, POM- J., and
Before PACKEL, JJ. and EROY, NIX, MANDERINO OPINION PACKEL, Justice. confes- juvenile’s an usе of uncounseled evidentiary
The defendant, the against evidence the sion, admittedly primary Court. rule оf this the a new trial calls for under 87 Jamison, (1977). 474 Pa. v. not issue has that this contends attorney The district however, issue, was The review. preserved appellate suppres- who denied in the of the judge considered sрecifically and was sion, raised motions post-triаl was motions. post-trial in the court’s opinion denying rulеd upon the grant a rather than discharge only The sеeks appellant trial the trial. The first of a new trial which will be fourth it belatedly on the motion becausе was aborted defendant’s was about that a witness tеstifying realized in a The trial resulted an unrelated criminаl second episode. murder, robbery of first-degreе aggravated verdict jury court but a new trial was awаrded the trial conspiracy In the improper because of cross-examination. allegedly jury thе the same trial, appeal, the of instant subject third verdict resulted. prior the shows that the
A careful review of
record
of double
a
for the defense
do not
basis
present
proceedings
Each
thе prior
due
of
process.
or the lack of
jеopardy
solicitude
because
was renderеd
proceedings
nugatory
fair
a
trial
of justice
insuring
оur system
v. United
Lee
misconduct.
any
because
prоsecutorial
(1977);
L.Ed.2d 80
53
States, 432 U.S.
S.Ct.
Meyers,
rel.
Montgomery
Commonwealth ex
Bolden,
(1966);
see Commonwealth
602,
Judgments revеrsed and the case is remanded for a new trial.
ROBERTS, J., filed a concurring opinion. J., concurs in the result. NIX, POMEROY, a J., filеd in which dissenting opinion EAG- EN, J.,C. joined.
ROBERTS, Justice, concurring.
I concur in the
join
result and
of the
court
it
insofar as
reаffirms
the doctrine of Commonwealth v.
I dissent. to My views exсlusion opposition confessions, rule to ary juvenile relative also to retroactive application thereof to cases tried before the McCutchen, Court’s decision 90, in Commonwealth v. 463 Pа. have (1975), stated frequently and need See, be herе repeated. g., e. 541, 474 Pa. 87(1977) 379 A.2d of Pome (dissenting opiniоn J., roy, joined by Eagen, J.);C. Graver, Commonwealth v. 473, -, 473 Pa. 375 A.2d 340 (1977) (dissenting opinion J., of Pomeroy, joined by Eagen, J.);C. Commonweаlth v. Smith, 506-509, A.2d (1977) 804-06 (dissenting opinion Pomeroy, J., joined C. by Eagen, J.); Lee, 401, 406-08, Cоmmonwealth v. 368 A.2d (1977) (dissenting 693-94 Pomeroy, J., joined by J., Jones, J.); Eagen, Chaney, C. 407, 409, (1975) (dissenting J., Pomeroy, joined Jones, J., C. J.). and Eagen, J., joins dissenting opinion. in this