Court Opinion

ID: 9760096
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:40:23.868512+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:08.289825
License: Public Domain

NIX, Justice,
dissenting.
I am in agreement that the right of counsel, conferred under the Mental Health Procedures Act,1 carries with it the concomitant requirement that counsel’s performance must be effective on behalf of the client. However, in view of the nature of the inquiry, it must be remembered that the best interest of the client in these cases is not necessarily served by striving to seek the client’s release. The mere fact that counsel failed to object to the hearsay evidence in this case without a further explanation as to why counsel elected to follow that course of action does not provide a justification for a finding of ineffectiveness.
*160For example, counsel from his own investigation may well have been aware of the existence of the facts supportive of the conclusion that his client was a danger to herself and others. If such was the case, I do not believe that the attorney was under a duty to take advantage of some fortuitous difficulty with which the government may have been faced in presenting legally admissible evidence of these facts.
Accordingly, I would have directed at the very least that a hearing be held to ascertain counsel’s explanation for his decision.

. Act of July 9, 1976, P.L. 817, No. 143, § 304, 50 P.S. § 7304.