Court Opinion

ID: 9695845
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:30:19.913509+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:16.983036
License: Public Domain

NIX, Justice
(concurring).
I fully agree with the majority’s view that the law may never countenance the election of an illegal option to avoid a dilemma even where the dilemma was improperly created. Thus a witness may not be permitted to avoid punishment for perjury although he was improperly required to testify. Regardless how reprehensible the gov*554ernmental coercion may be, the condition cannot be remedied by condoning equally reprehensible conduct on the part of defendants, i. e., perjury.
Additionally, I wish to again note my disagreement generally with the quality and quantum of protections the majority of this Court has seen fit to give a witness who appears before investigative grand juries where that witness is a potential defendant. See Commonwealth v. Columbia Investment Corporation, 457 Pa. 353, 373, 325 A.2d 289, 299-303 (1974) (Dissenting Opinion, Nix, J.).
MANDERINO, J., filed a dissenting opinion.