Commonwealth v. Tainan

¶ 11 dissent. The majority’s decision, in my view, would essentially nullify longstanding authority of our Supreme Court with respect to the impartiality of a presiding judge.

¶ 2 Appellant argues that he should not have been tried before Judge Jackson due to the incriminating information which Judge Jackson had been exposed to and also that counsel was ineffective in failing to seek Judge Jackson’s recusal. I must agree. It is beyond challenge that in order to provide a fair trial the fact finder cannot be exposed to inadmissible and highly prejudicial information. This is the very reason…