Court Opinion

ID: 9652126
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:18:24.347445+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:48.621895
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Me. Justice Cohen :
The majority concludes that the unconstitutionality of the confession did not primarily induce a guilty plea because this is a case where the Commonwealth had strong evidence — most importantly — an eyewitness. I think we are on thin ice in determining that the poisonous fruit (i.e., the plea of guilty) of the tree (the unconstitutional confession) was not poisonous because evidence was available which would sustain the con*150viction even if the confession were suppressed. In the companion ease of Commonwealth ex rel. Collins v. Maroney, 420 Pa. 631, 217 A. 2d 739 (1966), on practically the same facts we denied relief and relief was subsequently granted to defendant who resorted to his federal remedy.
I agree with Judge Higginbotham and the Third Circuit Court that relief was proper in Collins, and I would extend it to this codefendant.
I dissent.