Opinion ID: 1462658
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Pre-trial inspection by defendant.

Text: A hearing was held in open Court on March 7, 1961, which was attended by appellant and his counsel. Counsel for (defendant) appellant then presented a petition for a rule on the District Attorney to require the latter to permit appellant to examine certain documentary and other tangible evidence in the possession of the District Attorney or of the State Police. At this hearing the District Attorney agreed to make available to counsel for defendant certain of the material requested and to authorize other individuals in possession of desired material to make it available to counsel. As to additional matters [] the Court denied the appellant access unless he could produce authorities which would require the Court to act favorably on appellant's application in those particular matters. The record shows that appellant's attorneys apparently agreed to the offers made by the District Attorney and to the rulings of the Court. During the next six months prior to appellant's trial (which commenced on September 18, 1961) appellant's counsel never asked for an additional or final order or ruling on the applications which they had made at the hearing on March 7, 1961. The record shows that counsel for the appellant had access to and an opportunity for examining both of appellant's above-mentioned statements. Appellant's counsel made no objection to the introduction into evidence of portions of these statements and in fact agreed to such admission. We believe that the lower Court gave defendant more than he was entitled to under the law. Many defendants and their attorneys and some Courts forget that Justice is not a one-way street, and that in the interest of Justice every Court has a duty to protect the law-abiding community, as well as the basic rights of an accused to a fair trial. Furthermore it is still the law of Pennsylvania that a defendant is not entitled to any such pre-trial discovery as a matter of right. Questions involving pre-trial discovery in criminal cases lie generally within the discretion of the trial Judge and his action will not be reversed unless such discretion was abused: Commonwealth v. Wable, 382 Pa. 80, 86, 114 A. 2d 334; Commonwealth v. Evans, 190 Pa. Superior Ct. 179, 230, 154 A. 2d 57. This general rule was not abrogated or changed by Petition of DiJoseph, 394 Pa. 19, 145 A. 2d 187, where the facts and circumstances were exceptional and extraordinary. There was no abuse of discretion to the prejudice of the appellant in this case.