Betrand Appeal
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Concurrence
Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Pomeroy:
In holding that appellant’s waiver of Miranda rights did not break the causal connection between his illegal arrest and a subsequent confession, the Court by its decision in this case appears to have joined those “courts [which] have held that an illegal arrest, ipso facto, is sufficient to exclude any subsequently obtained evidence as tainted fruit.” Although the opinion indicates that the Commonwealth may be able to prove a confession purged of the taint of the initial arrest, the prospects of succeeding in such a task would seem to be more illusory…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Wong Sun v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Aguilar v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Spinelli v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- State v. JacksonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1964
- Clarence D. Rogers v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1964
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.