Court Opinion

ID: 9695592
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:24:03.557456+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:14.646394
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Cohen:
This appeal is from an order of the court dismissing a pretrial petition for a writ' of habeas corpus. Since the appellant-defendant does not question the lower court’s determination that a prima facie case of *408murder against defendant has been made out by the evidence, I would do nothing more than quash this appeal, thereby requiring the defendant to stand trial.
To allow appeals in situations such as this, places upon the courts an unsurmountable burden and provides defendants with a facility for delay.
I feel compelled to go further and voice my complete disagreement with what the majority has to say. The majority thoroughly fails to recognize that the constitutional right to counsel would be a sham if defense counsel were not able to prepare a proper defense. It is possible that this crime was not committed exactly as the circumstantial evidence proves. While a prima facie case of murder in the first degree has been established by the evidence presented to the lower court, the majority’s determination completely prevents the presentation of any defense which would dispel the conclusions arrived at from the circumstances.
The lower court found that defendant was not feigning a loss of memory, but it could not determine whether the loss of memory would or would not be permanent. This substantially established the right of the accused to at least secure reasonable continuances. This entire problem was evaluated in an exhaustive law review note entitled, “Amnesia: A Case Study in the Limits of Particular Justice”, 71 Yale L.J. 109 (1961). A superficial reading of this article will disclose that more consideration is due this situation than that given by the majority. However, as I have observed, this appeal is interlocutory and should be quashed. Not to do so will require two trials when there is an allegation of a loss of memory. Even the majority’s zeal to prevent “coddling of criminals” should not serve as a vehicle to circumvent our recent unanimous opinion in Commonwealth ex rel. Fisher v. Stilzel, 418 Pa. 356 211 A. 2d 457 (1965).
I dissent.