Court Opinion

ID: 9747509
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 15:18:43.636779+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:24.204165
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Cercone, J.:
I believe that the confrontations at the hospital where the victim identified two of the defendants were within the permissible limits of United States v. Sanchez, 422 F. 2d 1198 (2d Cir. 1970). It should be noted that in the record it is only definite that defendants Eosser and Berry were identified by Mr. Tomassini at the hospital. However, I believe that the later confrontations at the police station and the preliminary hearing were in violation of the holdings of United States v. Wade, 338 U.S. 218, 87 S. Ct. 1926, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1149 (1967) and Commonwealth v. Lee, 215 Pa. Superior Ct. 240, 257 A. 2d 326 (1969). In my opinion, the identifications at the police station were improperly conducted and carried a strong potentiality of suggestion, as in the Lee case, supra. Also, it is my feeling that the defendants were entitled, under Wade, supra, to the assistance of counsel at these times.
I believe the case should be remanded for a hearing, at which the Commonwealth should be given the op*232portunity to demonstrate that the identifications by Mr. Tomassini at the trial were not tainted by the unlawful out-of-court identifications at the police station and at the preliminary hearing.