Title: Commonwealth, v. Allshouse, Jr., R., Aplt (Concurring Opinion)

State: pennsylvania

Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Document:

[J-15-2009] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. RICKY LEE ALLSHOUSE, JR., Appellant : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 55 WAP 2008 Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered April 18, 2007 at No. 623 WDA 2006 affirming the Judgment of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County entered November 2, 2005 at No. CP-33-CR0000419-2004. ARGUED: March 4, 2009 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE SAYLOR DECIDED: DECEMBER 29, 2009 I join the majority opinion. My only addition is to highlight the tension between the testimonial litmus of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354 (2004), and the plain terms of the Sixth Amendment. See U.S. CONST., amend. VI (“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him”). The many open questions in the wake of the immense shift in Confrontation Clause jurisprudence heralded by Crawford leaves lower-tier federal courts and state courts in a difficult position in terms of predicting the appropriate limits of this critical Sixth Amendment provision, as newly construed. Accord Michael H. Graham, 30B FED. PRAC. & PROC. EVID. §7033 (2009). I credit the majority opinion for doing the best job possible in such circumstances. [J-15-2009] - 2 Mr. Chief Justice Castille joins this concurring opinion.