Legal Opinion · Dissent

Commonwealth v. Triplett

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 13, 1975No. 474Published

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

  1. Harris v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. Oregon v. HassSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  3. Walder v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
  4. State v. SantiagoHawaii Supreme Court · 1971
  5. State v. YowellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1974

33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API