*1 its аctual The justified commission was authority. of new extention refusing rights granting on theories the commission. rights rejected by properly As find no error lack or depriva- evidence law, due orders tion of the com- respective process, are mission affirmed.
The April 1958, order issued Court Nos. March Term, making appeals, 17, 18, supersedeas of commission’s is va- order, supersedeas terminated. cated, are of the commission at orders affirmed appellant. cost of McSorley, Appellant. v.
Commonwealth *2 J., 1958. Before P. December Argued Rhodes, and Wat- Woodside, Ervin, Gunther, Wright, Hirt, JJ. kins, and Harold E. B. with them
Garl Shelley MeCamey, Reynolds & Warren C. Morgan, Shelley, Lipsitt, Chilcote & MeCamey, appel- and Dickie, Robinson, lant. Thomas Attorney, F. District
Huette Dowling, them E. with Mary D. General, Attorney McBride, Filip P. District Attorney, Assistant Hoerner, Alfred Isaiah W. Crippins, General, Deputy Attorney pone, Spe Vincent Panаti, G. Attorney General, Deputy for appellee. cial Assistant Attorney General, by April Opinion 1959: J., Gunther, his G. Franklin appealed has Defendant, McSorley, Quarter conviction and sentence in the Court of Ses- sions of the Peace of for misbehavior Dauphin County This out of an investigation office. charge grew Commission a Grand Pennsylvania Turnpike requested Attor- investigation was ney General misconduct *3 Pennsylvania, alleging Turnpike various in the persons Commission. The At- General’s torney made no petition, however, reference to the defendant.
On the Grand made its re- January 18, 1957, port presentment and in which in- recommended the dictment the defendant of for misfeasance malfeasance, and nonfeasance.
On January before 21, defendant 1957, indictment, moved the court to quash part оf the presentment which involved him, the reason assigning the pre- sentment was not within the scope and limitations placed the upon investigation by court. This motion was and on overruled January 23, pursuant 1957, order of court below directing the district attorney indictments prepare in accordance with the offenses in the charged presentment, the regular Grand Jury returned a true bill charging defendant with malfea- misfeasance and sance, nonfeasance in office. There- after, quash motion to the indictment presented was on the grounds that presentment, which the indictment was was not within based, the authority investigating Jury; con- that remarks of the Grand and cerning radio the case made Governor body just prior convening of said were television improp- prosecuting officers prejudicial, that the and erroneously participated erly its deliberations special de- Jury. This motion was Grand advised nied. appeal was filed to this Court
Prom such action an quashed argument, March after 1957, and on appeal of Court the order for reason that Dauphin dismissing County de- Quarter Sessions appeal- petition interlocutory and not fendant’s able. brought defendant was
On November 12, of the Commonwealth’s at the conclusion to trial and A overruled. demurrer was the defendant’s evidence, point binding refused was likewise instructions guilty. jury Motions verdict of returned a judgment were made in arrest trial and for new appeal This fol- sentenced. the defendant refused and lowed. questions our consideration: are raised for
Two (1) P.S. P. L. the Act June 15, 1951, Under judgment, arrest the motion in should Section 871, insufficiency evidencе to sustain the con- because of present- (2) granted; should been viction, have investigating indict- and the ment *4 quashed? our subsequently As found thereon be ment disposes question effectively disposition of the first of question. the appeal, not consider second shall this we imposes supra,1 L. P. 585, Act June 15, 1951, The record duty to consider the entire the court the duplication poorly the drafted. It contains a act 1This grounds “may”. “that the evi motion the It to a on refers word charge,” and refers the the to to sustain insufficient was dence by stating, de- when it that motion “shall court on of the action
227 to to evidence is sufficient determine whether there court was establish the of the defendant. The guilt to the given jurisdiction pass upon credibility the a fact findei, the or to evidence as review witnesses, the or at to determine have arrived whether would re- same verdict as the did. We jury therefore, must, the had all the evidence ject defendant’s jury a to a disbelieve. After verdict must guilty, we right evidence up- all accept true Commonwealth’s its ver- could have based properly on which jury 2d v. 372 Pa. 93 A. dict. Commonwealth Phillips, 455 (1953). office has of misfeasance in
The common crime law courts to mean appellate defined our been clearly or positive duty either breach of statutory discretionary official of a public performance by Peoples v. motive. Commonwealth corrupt act with 792; et 28 A. 2d McNair’s 345 Pa. Petition, al., (No. Hubbs 2), A. Commonwealth v. 498; Pa. A. 2d 618. Misconduct Superior 137 Pa. Ct. 244, merely in its is not penal malfeasance in office, sense, conviction,” to sustain cide is not sufficient evidence that there poor draftmanship to discharge defendant. It was it shall language “there change insufficient” to from “evidence was charge” and from “sustain the when evidence” is not sufficient referring motion, referring the conviction” “sustain proper word use motion. The action of the court expres- “charge” The nor “conviction” but “verdict.” neither and “entire the act use the “face of the record” sions record” meanings. in two different “record” word recommending Attorney message General’s to the Governor pointed language, signing out errors fore- his this law into exemplified case, fol- concluded as saw confusion confusion, are, these words cause neverthe- “While lows: improvement opinion less, the bill is criminal court, expedite procedure, the work of the and result in fairer will of a treatment defendant.”
228 discretion,
error in or from sound judgment departure corrupt but the neglect omission or must be. act, wilful, n and amount to a required breach of duty legally one accepted public who has office. Commonwealth al., 116 et v. Brown Pa. A. 748. Superior Ct. 175 1, (cid:127) no It is all that the defendant violated conceded- by al- of positive in the performance statutory duty Penn- acts here involved. An examination leged Sep- Act of sylvania Turnpike Northeastern Extension clearly et tember P. L. 36 P.S. 660 27, seq., has discloses this be a fact. The General Assembly Commission as Pennsylvania Turnpike constituted there- of the Commonwealth instrumentality and, a Turnpike pub- a member of Commission fore, lic See P.S. officer. Act of P. L. May 21, 1937, prove, The .Commonwealth had. section 652(d). therefore, performed that the dеfendant a discretionary- a act motive. In order sustain corrupt with to prove had the Commonwealth duty conviction, acted the act and(cid:127) defendant complained a motive. corrupt from de- complicated.
The facts this case are a with former prominent gov- no businessman, fendant, appointed ernmental a member of experience, á Commission. After Turnpike Pennsylvania serving months, he replaced T. J. who few chairman, Evans, commission for approximate- had been member became After Evans years.- ly McSorley chairman, turnpike Common- payroll was not establishes immediately The evidence wealth. as a member replaced Evans was Commis- after a turnpike had David J. em- McSorley Dal'to, sion, to Evans as clmuffeur assigned period for ploye, cost, to at a approxi- 8 months Commission of Dalto paid, Daltoin by-it: salary. mately $2800 and those for Evans- drove whom exclusively Evans, *6 asked to him drive. He to no other furnished service the Commission to the or Commonwealth.
Whether this act or was practice McSorley good sound is not judgment for our consideration in are case; we concerned with the act crimi- whether was nal. If a had it If corrupt was. McSorley motive, this motive in to chauffeur Evans was assigning to obtain for gain himself or his to political or party, a a bestow relative a a upon friend or gratuity political at the expense of the his ally Commonwealth, motive would be he corrupt and would be of the guilty offense charged. The Commonwealth need not present to detailed establish the but evidence testimony motive, must be produced which discloses facts a from which corrupt motive can be inferred. intent from
Criminal
be inferred
may
jury
facts
circumstances
a
which are of such
nature
to
defendant’s
prove
beyond
reasonable doubt.
guilt
Commonwealth v.
378 Pa.
A. 2d 820;
Kloiber,
412,
Commonwealth v.
373 Pa.
The relies three sets of circum- Commonwealth on it stances from an inference of corrupt which, argues, deducted. it upon motive relies the fact First, that the defendant three- occasions on between- July 1955 and March that acknowledged publicly Dalto services for This performing merely Evans. is evidence of the fact that assigned admitted McSorley Dalto for but no drive evidence of his-mo- Evans, his' tive or reason for chauffeur. Next, assigning fact that defendant Dalto directed argues services personal for Evans after the ter- perform latter’s office as a mination of the term of member Turnpike Commission would of Pennsylvania a corrupt the inference of motive. raise itself as- the act of sufficient evidence Establishing use Evans his personal the chauffeur signing does motive. corrupt establish automatically sep- act The are issues to be separate motive inferred determined. motive can be arately corrupt A from act2 a climate of facts within only makes that inference reasonable. circumstance Common- third which, in- motive can be corrupt
wealth inferred, argues, in- volves “leave” Dalto he became granted evidence dis- automobile accident. The jured driving closed whilе January 9, 1956, Dalto, *7 T. involved Richard son of J. was Evans, Evans, an automobile accident in Richard was in Evans injuries injured requiring and Dalto received fatally hospitalization. Cooper
William H. informed defendant of accident to him that suggested would he, Cooper, sick defendant Dalto on leave. The concurred place that left defendant’s Cooper suggestion. Thereafter, to office without further conversation regard any Dalto obtained a blank leave which he deliv- slip to controller for the William J. Commis- Roberts, ered out leave filled Roberts and sion. The was slip by 1956. The leave how- granted dated January 6, Dalto, leave for a one vacation 1956. day ever was January 9, that made out was slip per- testified Cooper by the Roberts testified that sonnel whereas department, from Cooper. obtained The evidence information was that the entries made on therefore, clearly shows, persons other prepared leave than were slip defendant. was connection with leave
The defendant’s only that Cooper the statement he would acquiesce to 2 820; Kloiber, 412, Com Pa. 106 A. v. 2d Commonwealth Homeyer, 2d 743. Pa. 94 A. v. monwealth place Dalto on The did not dis- sick leave. evidence knowledge any close that the Dalto defendant had that granted January to be was vacation leave slip or that the leave back. None was be dated inferences ei- these circumstances nor the therefrom, corrupt any singly collectively, motive. ther or show supplying the defendant in What was motive of expense? Turnpike Evans at with chauffeur сertainly admit that he did Commonwealth would acquire present personal any finan- do so or future gain. could cial is no There evidence from which it political gain that the motive or re- be concluded was politi- political party for the defendant or his or ward McSorley, (Evans Republican cal friends. Democrat). McSorley and no evidence that There is (They did not know relatives or friends. Evans were appointed McSorley until Avas the Com- each other mission). could no which it There is evidence from person organiza- any McSorley or or be inferred or he was ever received tion with which associated, personal hoped thing any favor value or receive persons might person any or from he from Evans influence.
McSorley he became testified Chairman *8 during mil a which Avas hundred Commission, program Evans with which construction lion dollar to Evans available he anxious have was Avas familiar, utilizing suggestions, long ex his thus for advice and perience the as a Commis member and Chairman discussing he that this Avith and after Evans, sion, paid gave by that the so a chauffeur Commission him Harrisburg willing to might to be be driven and he expendi give to the chairman. information new money the to secure ad ture Commission’s of $2800 project dollar one Avith a million from hundred vice on finding negatives experience else noAvhere available, evi There was of criminal motive.3 corrupt intent or that Evans dence the witnesses Commonwealth’s by chauffeur offices the came to the after Commission Mc- to did consult was and he with assigned him, Sorley. could motive explanation
But of his McSorley’s can- the rejected have been therefore, by jury, If the motive. use to determine defendant’s from there the evidence appear would in anything motive defendant’s which could find jury to the con- required we would sustain be corrupt, this evidence could sustain convic- viction. The which defendant, indicate a benefit or to the gain tion might hope his his his or political party, relative, friends, is in the evidence but there absolutely thereof, nothing infer could such benefit upon jury any the defendant had two distinct gain. pre- Furthermore, his favor which had be overcome sumptions in first of positive evidence. The these was presump- presumption tion of innocence. The of innocence is conclusion drawn in favor of the accused law he is he must brought acquitted be trial, unless reasonable doubt. proved beyond guilty does not shift This and remains with presumption the еntire trial. accused during The second presumption, involving public officers, has been established our law. In Matson firmly v. Pa. 88 A. 2d Margiotti, Supreme Court, said that “an official act of a public official is performed have been presumed accordance with McSorley arrangement the time made Between Ev with case, charged and the time the trial in this Evans was guilty Turnpike. criminal found acts connected with the This undoubtedly jury case, had its effect but there McSorley any questhm no to believe that had reason to reason knowledge, experience, ability integrity of Evans at *9 time he succeeded him as chairman.
233 the law and in motive, faith and the good proper with i.e., the purpose promoting public good protecting public In Hill v. Alexander interest.” et 338 Pa. al., A. 2d laid down 26, 32, the Court 884, the following pur- “. . . general principle: honesty pose and faith in good of acts in their performance official will be the courts on capacity assumed by part of persons responsible un- holding public positions, til the et appears . . .” In Barnes v. contrary clearly al. Scranton Poor Pa. Superior District, 149, Ct. A. we said: “The 241, presumption is that the acts executive officers are done for their public good. When actions are the burden of challenged, showing rests on those a is contrary asserting it, heavy . burden . .” This presumption shifts if, only if, Commonwealth both proves elements of the crime here involved. presumptions here im- involved, strongly bedded in our cannot be overcome law, refer- vague by ences inferences to be drawn from circumstances proved. The former is positive is latter nega- in the sense tive that one must suрply found lacking. be
In passing the inferences relied on by Com- we must monwealth, point out inferences drawn it could be equally drawn in favor of de- fendant. In Commonwealth v. 354 Pa. New, 47 A. 2d pointed following observation was rear, made Supreme Court: “When two equally n sonable and inconsistent mutually be inferences can from the drawn same set of must circumstances, jury permitted guess which inference it will adopt, one especially two guesses result a defendant of depriving his life or his liberty. When on whom rests party the. burden-of proof-in either criminal a.or civil offers case, evidence consistent-with propositions, two he opposing proves neither.”- *10 upon by is not The case the Commonwealth relied applicable corrupt case a The to motive. here show Superior 141 Pa. of Commonwealth v. Brownmiller, distinguishable. clearly In 14 A. Ct. 2d 907, employed Highways Secretary over that the of case, employes County election, in before an Luzerne 9,000 majority highway great did a did no work, of whom political report duty in cam- but worked a paign. an election The motive shown there was to win testimony through padding payroll. re- of The the the continuing approved plan vealed that Brownmiller a authorizing county signed the work in that a letter of funds the maintenance account transfer to County, Luzerne and that until November day in- before the number of men had election, the normally creased to than when 368 men 18,000 more highway. could manned State have miles of nothing here There is case in Commonwealth’s to that There was the defendant was dishonest. show testimony his no to that indicate his he, rеlatives, political organization party, any as- his or or friends, sociation he have were in which been interested, recipient type any reward remuneration, assigning Dalto favor return for No at- Evans. corrupt tempt proof explain, made to a mo- why such action was taken the defendant or tive, that the from Commission received no benefit show arrangement. Dalto such While that dur- testified period ing he here involved did no work for performed if in fact Evans services for the Commission, that Dalto Commission, the fact drove for Mr. Evans just prove contrary. testimony a would during witness disclosed first Commonwealth Evans left two months after both Commission, Harrisburg every and Dalto Evans were week for day or so and were seen the office of the Commis* sion. Under these it is difficult to un- circumstances, derstand the Commonwealth failed why produce if it had to show evidence, the Commission any, in fact no received benefit from the in- arrangement volved corrupt part show motive the defendant.
We are of the that there is no from opinion evidence could have motive corrupt inferred jury part on the of the defendant.
The of judgment the court below and reversed the defendant is discharged. by
Concurring Opinion J.: Watkins, answer I but would opinion concur in the majority appeal. question the other raised by affirmatively and Grand The presentment investigating Jury of thereon should the indictment found subsequently quashed. Jury Grand an investigating
The of instrumentality circum- and rigidly its unless strictly by very nature, and to persecution lends itself scribed Court, by in- well result grave Its use abuse. unbridled justice. of an in the authority
It
is well established
of
scope
is limited
by
Grand
vestigating
Commonwealth
impanelling.
caused its
petition
179;
A. 2d
Superior
Pa.
Ct.
107
v. Soloff,
Peniten
Western State
Investigation
Grand Jury
of
In
96 A. 2d
re
189;
Ct.
Superior
173 Pa.
tiary,
Investigation Proceedings
Grand County
Dauphin
of
A. 2d 783. An examination
(No.
While the of its investigation is the ac wide, tivities of the Grand are restricted charge and then of the court under- prescribed limitations. McNair’s Supra; Petition, Commonwealth v. Hubbs (No. 137 Pa. Superior 1), 8 A. 2d 611; Comm Ct. . v. supra onwealth An Soloff, examination of the below, the court Jury by to the Grand charge given bribery charge discloses while the that, however, definition or explanation no were conspiracy defined, mal- crime of common law was on the given We are in office. misfeasance or nonfeasance feasance, possible The only at a loss to this omission. explain Attorney in the tenor of the be found explanation may was main emphasis in which the petition General’s This set omission conspiracy. placed bribery which was presentment the defective stage In our the pre- case. present view, handed down or did indicate commission of a sentment crime presentment cause therefor. The read probable follows:
“Mr. did Daniel J. Dalto, cause one McSorley Commission employee Pennsylvania Turnpike place absent himself from normal duties in order of and for the sole use of em- disposal himself at at of Thos. J. his ployment Evans, guests others a time Mr. Evans was no affiliated with longer This Turnpike apparently Commission. act was committed of June during period 1955 and July continued March of through period approxi- 8 months. It mately appears that the said Mr. Dalto a sum of in the paid money amount of figures Commission $2,800 by Turnpike fоr which Turn- no pike Commission received material or other thing of value.”
Nowhere can find that the Grand found there was reasonable cause to believe that the de- fendant acted from a motive. corrupt It stated merely “In consequence foregoing, members of Special Jury (with at least twelve members *13 voted the having affirmative) do find hereby prob- able cause for the C. The following: of the charge of crime malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance as
applied Pennsyl- of to an the officer of Commonwealth respect following: (a) Frank Mc- vania in G. to the request Sorley.” np an It then followed with the charging crime indictment be defendant with the drawn he in that misfeasance and nonfeasance malfeasance, permitted “knowingly, wilfully corruptly procured, render and allowed J. Dalto” to work for and Daniel services to Thomas J. Evans. ap- the
It is safe same assume witnesses appeared peared indicting Jury before as the Grand special Upon Jury. testi- the the same before Grand mony investigating Jury no the find if Grand could indicting probable the it is difficult see how cause, Jury have remedied that defect. Grand could Compounding the omissions to were the referred being pres- improprieties prosecuting officers in the Jury, during en- of the Grand the ent deliberations usurpation investigation largement of its and the prerogative furnishing legal instructions court’s presentment January 1957. made on IS, it. The was January prosecuting officers' entered On two foreman, request apparent the room place: following colloquy took alia, intеr when, Jury: “Foreman of Grand Mr. District Attor- Deputy Attorney ney, Mr. members .of General, explanation further would like a Grand misfeasance and nonfeasance crime of malfeasance, office an officer of Commonwealth.” minutes the Grand reveal that it scope Deputy Attorney enlarged General who investigation when he said: “Reducing everything simplest very to the of lan- investigating Jury you guage, have to there sufficient amount- whether evidence satisfied probable presentment returning ing cause against certain as best individuals; then, describe, *14 you you think what the areas and what can, are, charges should be. ' formulizing shoul- “The of all that fall on the will prosecutor. is un- ders of the local Yours informal, official accusation. just way suggest do you,
“I this that the best pre- you if find is is to make the the evidence it, there, If amount sentment. the evidence is to the there, probable by you discharging your duties are cause, presentment. point making happens from that What on is in the hands of other as to whether some tribunal, presentments go in all the will ahead the manner that you actually have set them out. your duty
“But is to over the look evidence, look your in and determine own minds sufficient whether probable cause to make out cause of a criminal act of any people who have been described the vari- you. ous and numerous witnesses that have come before simple It is as as that.” always
From the time of
has
been the
Blaekstone,
practice
presiding judge
give
that the
must
whatever
required.
legal
Jury
instructions are
If the Grand
respect
any
propriety
doubt with
have
to the
аd-
mitting any part
they
of the evidence offered to them,
request
from the
advice
court. See Blaekstone
á
305. If
Commentaries
the court is to
instruct
subjects
its
on
it then
consideration,
body
follows that
cannot receive instructions from
questions
any
other source
which are to be deter-
Jury mined
it. The Grand
not the arm of the
prosecuting
any
officials but
the court and
at-
tempts
exclusively belonging
to interfere matters
cannot
sanctioned.
the court
appears
colloquy
from this
It also
that some instruc-
given previously
tions have been
in the Grand
crime of malfeasance,
room on the
misfeasance and non-
feasance
office.
requested
The foreman
a further
explanation.
the fact
court below
Considering
gave no instructions
in
on this
the previous
matter,
struction must have come
from
only
prosecuting
officers. To set a precedent
illegal
such
allowing
and prejudicial practices would be tantamount
to re
*15
the evils
vitalizing
and abuses of star chamber proceed
ings which were so odious to our forefathers.
is
This
a matter of serious concern which violates substantive
rights
citizen
every
who
be
might
subject
pre
to a
and
sentment,
indictment
subsequent
for
prosecution
a crime. The function of the
prosecuting officer is
aid the
in
grand jurors
the examination of witnesses
and to
such
give
instructions
as
general
they
re
may
but he
quire,
attempt
to influence their action
present
be
are
they
deliberating on the evi
dence or
on a
voting
matter under investigation. Com
monwealth v.
126 Pa.
Bradney,
17 A.
600; Com
monwealth v.
141 Pa.
Brownmiller,
Superior Ct. 107,
One other crept intо irregularity these proceedings. An examination of the speeches delivered by the Gov- ernor on the eve of convening the Grand and the Jury following disclose evening a disturbing interference judicial with orderly process. The speeches themselves indicate without doubt any the telling effect it had upon those who heard or saw the program. Excerpts from speeches these are set out a footnote hereto.1
1 Speech of October 1956 made in television broadcast: you’ll “You’ve seen Investigation see more. headlines — goes example Republican meanwhile on. The latest of how the Turnpike special leaders did business is the scandal. A investigating development. now proud this We’re of our Turn pike, justifiably great highways so. It’s one of the world. right angry anyone And wе have would use it to swin- had programs admittedly The stations these carrying Dauphin County coverage Harrisburg wide $20,- people out to steal die. Yet has been Certain set this done. stop $9,000,000 000,000 they got them. we could it and before from company De- Their was a called Manu-Mine Research front velopment. of the Chairman Their officers were close relatives Republican Turnpike son, nephew and his his Commission—his by marriage. Together they all niece owned almost the stock Company. they go $9,000,000 getting how from Now did about us. got really they very easy. competitive bidding “It was Without job up again. digging ground filling holes them then Experts charged prices found these holes were useless and the digging filling outrageous. them and them were “As soon we found about Commis- out this our Democratic Attorney investigate sioners asked General the matter. And investigation. Attorney petitioned General Cohen for a Grand investigation taking place. is now go exactly “Now let’s back Manu- for a moment to how examine Republican leaders, right Mine and its officers *16 knew who pulled off this swindle. up modestly shop capital “Manu-Mine set with a nominal $4,300 you deal, stopped I and as told before we it had been paid $9,000,000 Turnpike over Commission. The secret simple its success as we’ve seen was had an inside —Manu-Mine Turnpike track with the Commission as a result it did 96.8% Turnpike. Now, jobs of its business with the on most like one this you on, competitive bidding. that Manu-Mine worked have Manu- against anybody, negotiate, Mine never had to bid it never had to employed it was as a consultant. As a consultant it recommended inspector itself per- as contractor and then as an of work its that it formed. report by Turnpike “I have here a Manu-Mine and the Commis- report $117,000.00 gist sion. This pro- cost us and the of it towas pose you guessed a contract it—Manu-Mine. Now about with — job. say Experts unnecessary. that it was It was made work and jacked price up sky-high. say Now this isn’t I what anyone my says in impartial
what administration in is —this report by Management Company the Pierce of Scranton. report says: “Here is the and here is what it of residents numbers large beard and viewed were were the Governor statements of The the area. drilling, price for unit reasonable calculations as to the ‘In our One, points. approached contractor- assumed two view we it from equipment. equipment. Two, assumed contractor-rented controlled original drilling basing es- cases, volumе of In both profit overhead, cost and the timates, a reasonable allowed we casing. equipment a reasonable we estimated (cid:127)With contractor-owned equipment, price per rented linear foot. With $4.77 unit price per linear foot’. unit to be $5.95 estimated a reasonable you paid per know linear foot. Now $12.50 “Manu-Mine was story. it. know more when As much of it as we know of You’ll thing Jury reports finding. important re- its But the the Grand Republican have is no case: leaders member isolated that the history years coming an unfortunate of scandal that is now after out up. only being covered We’ve scratched surface. We will stop guilty until we have made been found sure that the have justice. brought out But more than that we will introduce Legislative program Harrisburg which will such see to improрer practices happen again dishonest can never that's why you Representatives I ask to vote for a Democratic House of Harrisburg and Democratic Senate in this fall so that we can pass legislation prevent dishonesty your needed to State * * *” Government
Statements October made television broadcast: you begin questioning Don Wear: “John'Scotzin would Gov- tonight.” ernor Leader “Governor, caught you program John Scotzin: I on a television night. last I’m not what sure Station it was—it have been this political you one.' awas tailend of a It film in which all renewed
your charges Reading fleecing Turnpike about Manu-Mines of $9,000,000 Republican Commission of more than under control. *17 you early September film reminded me of a statement made last you Attorney Dauphin County when sent General Cohen in the Jury investigation to ask charges. Court for a Grand of these At you you sorry charges that time said were to break these on the political campaign you a eve of and that said this wasn’t a matter concerning Republicans Democrats, you or that all wanted to do get -Obviously you’re truth., political hay out to make in tele- radio quoted and press, repeatedly daily to assumption vision. It a state would be tenuous you you night. these a film reconcile like had Now how do last divergent two statements?” “Well, people, John, entitled I are
Governor Leader: think the conspiracy know to facts. or an al- And there is at least leged conspiracy Pennsylvania, group in wilful full that some politicians trying Turnpike more lift from the are Commission $9,000,000, people right I than think the have a this State laying I know the facts. We’re them think those facts before and spite things guess everything, one it’s of the that —I almost in try, everything we the fact that sometimes I think that almost governmental politics official or official does can be as looked ought people I believe that this case. know the facts in people There are a lot laid the facts before involved we’ve ably certainly great deal them as we can. But more as there’s to this- I than I’ve laid before in film them that television people going completely think that the of this are state to be thoroughly happened. shocked at what moral and the tone government exemplified by hap- ethical standards of this what pened Turnpike they get down there Commission when at Dauphin results the Grand now that convened here in County.”-
Don Wear: “Go ahead John.” instance, “Governor, your John Scotzin: statements at this your plus question my film raised a in in mind that view Dauphin County that the fact Court turned this matter over Jury yesterday. question any being pre-- Grand Is there of this case your judged'in. considering influencing mind or the Jurors who are right They go now? home and listen to Governor.” television any danger.” “No, Governor Leader: I think don’t there is John Scotzin: “No?” put Governor Leader: “Because the information we that already already knowledge, published
there is common has been all newspapers. any pene- given over the State We haven’t trating, depth presented being of information that are to the Jury. just superficial compared things Grand This is -to the forthcoming, me, Jury. bewill it seems to to the Grand We have very great body been cautious. Therе’s of information we fingertips obviously at our have would not have asked for n Investigating under, incidentally, Repub-' here Attorney Dauphin' County. lican District We would not have *18 pro- Grand Jury investigating of the that members petit and Jury Grand indicting of the members spective body great information. What have a for it if we did not asked merely I do but the surface have scratched far we we have said so infor- people entitled to the are this Commonwealth believe ought the facts.” and to know mation keep is, you my point re- Governor “But John Seotzin: they newing your charges these influence on to have some are bound give analyzing jurors me illustration. evidence. Let who this are people hundred downtown I if went out and interviewed What they thought published about case. results of and I what guilty Say and some decided Manu-Mines was some of these they guilty.” were not these decided “They The wouldn’t have the facts John. Governor Leader: very presented It’s been limited. facts that have been so far have they guilty up hot determine whether or are the Grand to to just superficial presented be- there facts that we are but up ginning. backed all no doubt that we haven’t them with There’s body great, has been over of information that collected vast past now six or nine months and that’s the information that’s presented Jury. being those the Grand I more faith in to have they’re going judge on the basis members the case either that my your they’ve newspaper they’ve in or what in of what read seen telecast.” question.”
John Seotzin: “One more ahead, Don Wear: “Go John.” publish I John “If those Seotzin: facts I found in that Dauphin County poll, I think Court takе a dim that would probably reprimand view of me call in me for that me prejudicial.” be the basis that it “Well, they’re I Governor Leader: don’t think —I think don’t easy. going great I that If believe influenced didn’t that the body enough we have information to—ah—it makes a few you your things papers that I said and that tele- said only cast look ah —small because have scratched the surface. superficial. being presented there, real It’s all case is down ably being presented I’m sure is and well one of the As- former Attorneys City Philadelphia. sistant District There body great investigation and vast of information and research and backing up great facts that case I have confidence being ability way presented it’s and the in- terpret logical it and come to a decision.” jury did not bear or While see these broаdcasts. court below stated that it had no reason to believe Jury disregarded the Grand the admonitions relative political speeches, *19 safely in- can said that dicting Jury jury Grand or the trial did not have Coming, did, benefit of the court’s admonition. as it undoubtedly speeches himself) from the Governor prejudicial had a forceful and effect tainted the proceedings. any And while do mo- not ascribe evil speeches mailing tive to the Governor these at say they judicially we do had a undesirable time, process effect when considerations fairness and due are involved and when the unbiased deliberations impor- investigating Jury Grand of utmost were .... tance. irregularities
We believe"that the referred to inter- rights fered with the substantial of the accused. Under presented, the circumstances herе subscribe we cannot to the contention of the Commonwealth ir- that these regularities indicting were cured the action of the Jury Grand because it had information actual before placed presentment. it, which information was in the Nor is it much solace to state that the use of the min- “Governor, conceivably inquiring John Seotzin: Jury you could determine that have no case and throw it out nobody is’going then to be indicted?” “Well, yes Governor Leader: conceivable.” it’s judge’in charge Jury John Seotzin: “The his told them presumptions guilt any- there should be no or innocence of body proceedings.” in these (cid:127) guess way they Governor “I Leader: that’s the all start way justice that’s the law —the tradition of our law and in this country interesting develop- I is said. And think it will be to see the interesting ments that Grand and also be to watch de- velopments Bridge investigation in the Joint Toll where Delaware money being spent, extravagances there was also a lot of- where they Gay" payroll part had Miss TNT from ón Paree as a time secretary.” utes of the Grand say We improper. cannot that it was. quash motion to presentment should have
been granted under these circumstances. toso Failing do, indictment should have fared no better. Cf. Commonwealth v. 172 Pa. Gross, Superior Ct. A. 2d 251. The extraneous factors here involved make out clear case detrimental to the substantial rights of the defendant.
Dissenting Opinion P. J.: Rhodes, I would affirm the of sentence judgment opinion of the trial Judge (reported judge Kreider, 72 Dauphin Reporter the opinion County 241), Neely President as to the Acting Judge validity *20 the indictment defendant misbehavior with charging in office. Therefore I dissent. Unemployment Compensation
Pierce Case.