Court Opinion

ID: 9762659
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:28:14.885159+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:36.270928
License: Public Domain

GRILLO, President Judge,
concurring:
While I am constrained to join in the result reached in Judge Cercone’s opinion since Commonwealth v. Brady, 510 Pa. 123, 507 A.2d 66 (1986) is the law in this Commonwealth, I write separately to emphasize my concern with the precedent set by that case.
*143I believe that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in deciding Brady, mistakenly discarded a well-tried rule of jurisprudence. Before the court’s decision in Brady, it had long been the law in this Commonwealth that prior inconsistent statements were admissible only for impeachment purposes. See Commonwealth v. Gee, 467 Pa. 123, 354 A.2d 875 (1976). The concern was, and still is in many jurisdictions, that hearsay problems arose from its introduction, that is, that the prior statement was too unreliable to be introduced as substantive evidence because the declarant had not been under oath or subject to punishment for perjury, because the declarant was not in the presence of the trier of fact, and because the declarant was not to punishment for perjury, because the declarant was not in the presence of the trier of fact, and because the declarant was not subject to cross-examination. Id., 467 Pa. at 134-35, 354 A.2d at 880; 3A Wigmore, Evidence, § 1362; State v. Whelan, 200 Conn. 743, 753, 513 A.2d 86, 92 (1986).
Justice Larsen, writing for the majority in Brady, intimated that these concerns were outdated. According to his majority, the presence of the out-of-court declarant in court and his availability for cross-examination at trial obviates the need for contemporaneous cross-examination. Brady, 510 Pa. at 129, 507 A.2d at 69. Further, the majority states that the jury is allowed to observe the declarant during the present cross-examination, and he quotes the eminent jurist Judge Learned Hand that should the jury then determine that the declarant’s first statement is the truth, they are deciding from what they see and hear in the courtroom. Id. Finally, the Brady majority states that the former statement made by the declarant may be considered to “possess superior indicia of reliability” when compared to the latter, for the former statement was made at a point in time much closer to the event in question, when arguably the memory is much fresher, and the opportunity for fabrication less. Id., 510 Pa. at 130, 507 A.2d at 69.
I have considered the criticisms of the orthodox rule along with Justice Larsen’s opinion in Brady, but I am not *144convinced that this Commonwealth should have departed from the well-settled former rule. I do not agree that the opportunity to cross-examine a declarant at trial perhaps several years after the original statement was made, and certainly after a declarant has had time to consider both responses, can replace contemporaneous cross-examination. I am persuaded by the reasoning of the Supreme Court of West Virginia in State v. Spadafore, 159 W.Va. 236, 220 S.E.2d 655 (1975). That court reasoned that later cross-examination could in no way replace contemporaneous cross-examination, and pointed out difficulties which would arise in later cross-examination where the witness will only say in response to questioning that he does not remember. “Although the jury would be free to determine how much weight they should accord the prior statement as opposed to the present in-court testimony, there is little choice when the in-court testimony consists merely of an averment of loss of memory.” Id. at 246, 220 S.E.2d 655.
I also disagree with the argument that the prior statement has as great or even greater indicia of reliability than the later one. As the West Virginia court held, errors can arise in transcription, in misstatement by the officer preparing the statement for signature, and from leading questions which create misapprehension on the part of the declarant. Further, as that court pointed out, “Frequently, witnesses in criminal cases are implicated in the criminal activity at issue ..., and the prosecutorial authorities can induce fear, a sense of guilt, and panic, in such a way as to cause distortion of the facts.” Id. at 251, 220 S.E.2d 655. This scenario bears similarity to the situation that arose in Brady. In Brady, Traxler gave a tape recorded statement to police the night after the incident in question allegedly occurred. She admitted to being with the defendant during the day that the murder occurred, and could have easily been concerned for her own welfare when the statement was given to police. No contemporaneous cross-examination had occurred.
Hearsay considerations aside, I am most greatly concerned with the possibility of unfairness to defendants *145arising from the Brady ruling. Unless the declarant has made the statements at a prior judicial proceeding where he was under oath and subject to contemporaneous cross-examination by the same parties, or parties with similar interests, it seems to me that by allowing prior inconsistent statements to be offered for the truth of the matter asserted, we are making it possible for defendants to be convicted upon unsworn testimony. Arguments have been made that the oath does not necessarily convey the awe that it had been wont to do, and that insisting that testimony of declarants must be given under oath before it becomes admissible as substantive evidence does not necessarily insure that it is truthful. Regardless of the aptness of this charge, I find it fundamentally unfair to allow defendants to be convicted upon statements the veracity of which the declarant refuses to affirm in a public proceeding. See People v. Collins, 49 Ill.2d 179, 274 N.E.2d 77 (1971); State v. Dick, 27 Ohio St.2d 162, 271 N.E.2d 797 (1971). I would not have allowed prior inconsistent statements into evidence for the truth of the matters asserted in them. For these reasons, I respectfully concur in the majority’s decision.
Judge HOFFMAN joins in the result reached in Judge CERCONE’s opinion, and joins President Judge CIRILLO’s concurring opinion.