Court Opinion

ID: 9651492
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 16:20:15.009807+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:34.317698
License: Public Domain

*309ROBERTS, Justice
(concurring).
I find the majority’s reliance on the results of voir dire in evaluating the refusal to change the venue both unnecessary and improper. In Commonwealth v. Dobrolenski, 460 Pa. 630, 334 A.2d 268 (1975), this Court adopted the position of the ABA Project on Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to Fair Trial and Free Press (Approved Draft, 1968).
“‘[C]hange of venue . . . should not turn on the results of the voir dire; rather [it] should [be an] independent [remedy] designed to assure fair trial when news coverage has raised substantial doubts about the effectiveness of the voir dire standing alone.’ ”
460 Pa. at 637, 334 A.2d at 271, quoting ABA project, supra § 3.2, comment at 127 (emphasis in Dobrolenski).
I concur in the result because I believe that the trial court could properly conclude that appellant had failed to show “a reasonable likelihood that in the absence of [a change of venue], a fair trial cannot be had.” See ABA Project, supra § 3.2(c).