Commonwealth v. Triplett
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1DissentJones, Chief Justice
I agree with the dissenting view of my colleague, Mr. Justice Eagen, that there was no reversible error in this case in which a jury trial was waived. I would go further, however, and apply fully in this Commonwealth the doctrine of Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 91 S.Ct. 643, 28 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971), and Walder v. United States, 347 U.S. 62, 74 S.Ct. 354, 98 L.Ed. 503 (1954) ,1 Miranda warnings serve a deterrent function by virtue of the attached exclusionary remedy. “ [S] ufficient deterrence flows when the evidence in question is made unavailable to the prosecution in its case in chief.”…
2Cases cited38 opinions
- Harris v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Oregon v. HassSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Walder v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
- State v. SantiagoHawaii Supreme Court · 1971
- State v. YowellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1974
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.