Title: Commonwealth v. Brooks (Concurring Opinion)

State: pennsylvania

Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Document:

[J-130-2003] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. BILLY BROOKS, Appellant : : : : : : : : : : : No. 369 CAP Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, entered January 23, 1992, at No. 91-01- 2847-2850 ARGUED: October 21, 2003 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE LAMB DECIDED: December 30, 2003 I join the majority opinion, with which I completely agree, but write separately to voice my concern that both the trial court and the district attorney's office need to be diligent in making sure that the representation of a defendant, particularly in a capital case, is effective. Surely, no one today can doubt that a defense lawyer must, at a minimum, have face-to-face contact with his client pre-trial to effectuate effective representation. While all participants in the criminal justice system have their separate responsibilities, the trial judge and the district attorney must be particularly sensitive to ensuring the rights of the criminal defendant, even if defense counsel himself is not as vigilant.