Court Opinion

ID: 9637291
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:02:35.608451+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:55.193462
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Me. Justice Bell : -
I dissent'from the Majority’s order Avhich requires the CommonAvealth to make available to this defendant before trial, the gun which the CommonAvealth alleges is the gun used ill the murder, defendant’s bloodstained clothing; photographs of their bedroom Avhich Avas the scene of the crime, and articles of bedroom furniture which Avere seized by the police. This disastrous precedent-shattering decision breaches one of the few barriers which are left to protect peaceable communities and law-abiding ■ citizens from murderers and dangerous Criminals. - -While the order directs the Commonwealth merely to turn over to defendant for examination before' trial nearly all’ of its physical evidence, I believe that the effect of the-order will be to compel the Commonwealth in the near future to turn over or disclose to a defendant in advance of trial all its evidence. That this is ho idle fear is clearly demonstrated by the contention of the Attorney General of *29Pennsylvania, who personally appeared in opposition to the trial district attorney and to the District Attorneys’ Association of Pennsylvania.
The Attorney General orally argued that a criminal case was just like a civil case, and consequently the Commonwealth, in the interest of justice, should give or disclose to the defendant before trial all its evidence. It is difficult to imagine a more untenable argument or a more far-fetched analogy. A criminal trial is as different from a civil trial as day is from night. In civil trials there is pre-trial discovery and a mutual exchange of evidence. In a criminal trial the defendant does not have to inform the Commonwealth before or during trial or at any time his defense or any of his evidence; he does not have to take the witness stand and no unfavorable inference can be drawn therefrom; he can be convicted only if the Commonwealth proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which is defined to be a doubt which would restrain a reasonable man from acting in a matter of importance to himself; he is presumed to be innocent no matter how many terrible crimes he may have committed; if he has never been convicted of crime he can place in evidence his good reputation and that alone can be sufficient to justify his acquittal; and finally, he cannot be convicted unless all twelve of the jurors unanimously find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
If we descend from ethereal theorism to the World of Eeality, Ave knoAV that if courts require the CommonAvealth to inform each defendant of or permit him to examine its evidence, it Avill enable a person who commits a murder or a felony to devise, fabricate and manufacture his defense before trial — alibi, “blackout”, insanity, self-defense, or perpetration of the crime by someone else — and determine whether he *30should take the witness stand or introduce any evidence and if so, what kind. As recently as 1955, this Court in Commonwealth v. Wable, 382 Pa. 80, 86, 114 A. 2d 334, speaking through Chief Justice Stern, said: “ ‘The general rule is that the accused has no right to the inspection or disclosure before trial of evidence in the possession of the prosecution’: 2 Wharton’s Criminal Evidence, 1311, 1312, 1354, (citing cases from many jurisdictions).” At the very least, a defendant should be required to present exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons to justify an exception to the general rule. No such exceptional circumstances or compelling reasons were presented by the defendant in this case. Furthermore, the contention of the Attorney General flies in the teeth of and would require us to overrule Commonwealth v. Wable and abrogate a rule which for the protection of society has existed for centuries.
In recent years the Supreme Court of the United States and this Court, in their zeal to assure a fair trial to persons accused or convicted of crime, have, in my judgment, too often forgotten that law-abiding citizens and communities likewise possess certain fundamental inalienable rights. One of these rights is that their life and property shall be protected by the State against murderers and criminals. Justice is not a one way street — laAV-abiding citizens are entitled to the protection of the laAAr, and to Justice just as much as (if not more so than) criminals.
The present order goes further than this Court or, Ave believe, the Supreme Court of the United States, has ever gone. It permits fishing expeditions by a defendant; it sets a precedent which will make fabrication of defenses easy, and consequently (although of course unintentionally) it Avill make the protection of society and the conviction of dangerous criminals far *31more difficult than ever before. In the interest and for the protection of all law-abiding people in Pennsylvania I register this protest and dissent.