[J-12-2023] [MO: Todd, C.J.]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Appellee

v.

ANGELO WEEDEN,

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 19 WAP 2022

Appeal from the Order of the 

Superior Court entered May 26, 

2021 at No. 582 WDA 2020, 

affirming the Judgment of Sentence 

of the Court of Common Pleas of 

Allegheny County entered February 

24, 2020 at No. CP-02-CR0000513-2019.

ARGUED: April 18, 2023

CONCURRING OPINION

JUSTICE BROBSON DECIDED: NOVEMBER 16, 2023

I join the majority opinion in full, as I agree with its analysis and application of 

Confrontation Clause1jurisprudence to the “Shotspotter Investigative Lead Summary” 

(Summary) at issue in this appeal. This is not to say that I am entirely at ease with the 

trial court’s decision to admit the Summary over defense counsel’s hearsay objection, 

particularly in light of the testimony about human involvement “in the ShotSpotter 

process.” (Maj. Op. at 4.)2 In addition, I am intrigued by amici curiae’s other rule-based 

1 The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution 

provides: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be 

confronted with the witnesses against him.”

2

I do not believe the Court’s recent decision in Commonwealth v. Wallace, 289 A.3d 894 

(Pa. 2023), relating to GPS data, forecloses this argument as it applies to the Summary 

specifically. 
[J-12-2023] [MO: Todd, C.J.] - 2

argument addressed to the reliability, or authenticity,3 of this particular technology (Maj. 

Op. at 12 n.15), especially in light of the following disclaimer included in the Summary:

[T]his summary should only be used for initial investigative 

purposes . . . . This summary has been generated solely for 

the purpose for which it is provided. Nothing herein shall to 

any extent substitute for the independent investigation of the 

shooting incident. The data and conclusions herein should be 

corroborated with other evidentiary sources such as 

recovered shell casings and witness statements.

(Appellant’s Br., Appendix D at 3.) Nonetheless, the majority disposes of the only 

question before this Court—i.e., Appellant’s Confrontation Clause argument. And, as 

noted above, I join the majority opinion in full.

This matter, however, like our recent disposition in Wallace, illustrates the complex 

constitutional and evidentiary concerns that reasonably attach to what Justice Wecht 

refers to in his Concurring Opinion in Wallace as the use of “computer-generated

evidence” (in contrast to “computer-stored evidence”) at trial. Wallace, 289 A.3d 

at 908-09 (Wecht, J., concurring) (emphasis in original). One thing is certain, as 

technology advances, particularly in the field of artificial intelligence, these concerns will 

continue to arise, and judges and litigators—civil and criminal—will continue to wrestle 

with them. Accordingly, this may be the right time for the Court’s Committee on Rules of 

Evidence to examine these concerns and assess whether our current rules are adequate 

on the subject.

Justice Dougherty joins this concurring opinion.

3 See Pa. R. Evid. 901(b)(9) (requiring evidence of accuracy to authenticate a process or 

system).