Court Opinion

ID: 9648868
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:36:53.532247+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:05.887011
License: Public Domain

EAGEN, Chief Justice,
concurring.
I do not agree that “The threshold issue is whether appellant’s remarks obstructed justice.” Since appellant at the time involved was an officer of the court and acting in that capacity, the issue is whether his remarks constituted “official misconduct.” See In re Johnson, 467 Pa. 552, 359 A.2d 739 (1976) (Pomeroy, J., dissenting, joined by Jones, C. J. and Eagen, J.). While the question is very close, after consideration of everything that occurred I am not persuaded the remarks constituted “official misconduct.” Hence, I concur in the result reached by Mr. Justice Flaherty-