Jedwabny v. Philadelphia Transportation Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Dissent
Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Bell:
I disagree with the Court’s order and opinion because they are in my judgment both unrealistic and unfair. The Court admits that it is not necessary for a defendant to be represented by an attorney; it is sufficient if he has an opportunity to employ one, and in a case like this, to make “an informed choice”. There is no decision, rule, principle or canon that requires the trial Judge under such circumstances to be the informant — only a moron would be uneonversant with or ignorant of the situation and the penalty with which the driver of the automobile…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Ratcliff v. MyersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1955
- Pascarella v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1957
- Byers v. VargoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1957