Court Opinion

ID: 9697703
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:27:11.575119+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:34.675128
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Ladner:
I cannot agree with the majority opinion in its holding that the court below erred and should be re*351versed. It seems to me that when the attorney general asserts his high prerogative, and his assertion of it is challenged, the burden is on him to justify his act of supersession, see Com. ex rel. v. Philadelphia, 176 Pa. 588, 35 A. 1135 (1896). This is not a case where the district attorney refused or even failed to act. The district attorney had in fact acted and was proceeding apparently with reasonable diligence when he was superseded without being given an opportunity to show his good faith or sincerity.
In a case such as this much reliance ought to be placed on the good judgment of the court below, because it is in a far better position to know the calibre, ability and sincerity of the district attorney, as well as the relevant surrounding circumstances of the case, than we, who have before us only the cold record. The court below has, in its opinion, carefully considered, analyzed, and I think satisfactorily disposed of all the reasons advanced by the learned attorney general in justification of his order of supersession.
I would therefore affirm the decision appealed from.