Court Opinion

ID: 9758626
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 23:38:24.625224+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:53.558629
License: Public Domain

NIX, Justice,
concurring.
In my judgment, the trial court erred in refusing to permit appellant to examine at trial the complete prior statements of the witnesses called on behalf of the Common*503wealth. The court, in attempting to exclude irrelevant material that may have been contained in these documents, conducted its own review of the statements and made a unilateral determination of relevancy. This procedure was not in accordance with the views expressed in our recent opinion of Commonwealth v. Grayson, 466 Pa. 427, 353 A.2d 428 (1976).1
While I recognize the problems referred to by the Superior Court in Commonwealth v. Swierczewski, 215 Pa.Super. 130, 134-135, 257 A.2d 336, 338-339 (1969), I do not believe that these considerations justify excluding defense counsel from participation in the decision as to what is relevant for purposes of his cross-examination. Admittedly, irrelevant and immaterial testimony should not be introduced at the trial; however, this problem can be met by a direction of the court, after that court has had the benefit of counsel’s arguments as to the matters he believes are relevant for this purpose.2 To implicitly assume that defense counsel, a member of the bar and an officer of the court, would deliberately ignore a court order that certain materials not be disclosed, unjustly impugns the integrity of the defense bar of this Commonwealth.
I concur in the majority’s mandate.
MANDERINO, J., joins in this concurring opinion.

. The defense was entitled to examine the statement of the witnesses in order to have a fair opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. Whether the statements of the prosecution’s witnesses would have been helpful to the defense is not a question to be determined by the prosecution or by the trial court. They would not be reading the statements with the eyes of a trial advocate engaged in defending a client. Matters contained in a witness’s statement may appear innocuous to some, but have great significance to counsel viewing the statements from the perspective of an advocate for the accused about to cross-examine a witness.
Commonwealth v. Grayson, 466 Pa. 427, 428, 353 A.2d 428, 429 (1976).

. Since there has been no assertion by the prosecution in this case that any of the statements contained undisclosed, vital information pertaining to unrelated prosecution, that question need not be considered here.