Court Opinion

ID: 9757090
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 22:18:05.212324+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:34.704209
License: Public Domain

SPAETH, Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the majority’s order of a new trial; also, I join Judge PRICE’S concurring opinion.
*465In his motion for a new trial appellant alleges that “the said Joseph Piccirillo was at the time he was selected as a juror in this case, and is now, the husband of one Alice Piccirillo, the said Alice Piccirillo being at the time that said juror was selected and serving, a legal secretary in the law office of Pontzer and Pontzer, who were at all times the employer of the said Alice Piccirillo.” As no response to this allegation appears of record, we should accept it. Accepted, it establishes a sufficiently close relationship to require reversal. See Commonwealth v. Colon, 223 Pa.Super. 202, 208, n.8, 299 A.2d 326, 328, n.8 (1972), collecting cases holding that a juror’s failure to reveal background that would have been grounds for a challenge for cause or would have provoked a peremptory challenge required reversal and new trial when the juror should have been on notice that the information was called for.