Court Opinion

ID: 9758207
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 23:15:45.169227+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:47.877280
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Me. Justice Roberts :
I readily concur in the majority’s decision today holding that the use, at trial, of appellant’s “testimony at the preliminary hearing when he was without counsel and not informed he could have such assistance [is] *442prejudicial error which require [s] a new trial.” As the majority acknowledges, the issue is clearly controlled by White v. Maryland, 378 U.S. 59, 83 S. Ct. 1050 (1963).
Had the majority of this Court recognized the import and efficacy of White v. Maryland, supra, earlier, other litigants would have received the relief to which they were constitutionally entitled. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Dickerson, 428 Pa. 564, 565, 237 A. 2d 229, 230 (1968) (dissenting opinion).
I note that while I agree with the majority that Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 91 S. Ct. 643 (1971), is not applicable in the present circumstances, this Court has never approved of or adopted the controversial holding of Harris. Indeed, the law of this jurisdiction since at least 1968 has been that “a statement procured either after failure to give an accused opportunity to consult with counsel or . . . failure to warn an accused of his right to remain silent (under Escobedo), or in the absence of police attempts to advise the accused of his constitutional rights (under Miranda) cannot be employed at trial for any purpose . . . even for purposes of impeachment.” Commonwealth v. Padgett, 428 Pa. 229, 231-32, 237 A. 2d 209, 210 (1968) (emphasis added).
Mr. Justice Mandeeino joins in this concurring opinion.