Legal Opinion · Dissent

La Russa Appeal

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 11, 1974No. Appeal, No. 1443Published

1Dissent

*280Dissenting Opinion by

Jacobs,, J.:

I respectfully dissent.

The Immunity Act1 requires a “proceeding relating to organized crime or racketeering” and a “need for the grant of immunity.” The Attorney General’s petition must set forth the “nature of the investigation and the need for the immunization of the witness.” I believe that such a proceeding existed here and that the Attorney General’s petition was adequate.

The “proceeding” here is am investigation by a special grand jury into “widespread police corruption.” In my opinion such an investigation is a “proceeding relating to organized crime.”…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. BRADYSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  2. Commonwealth v. StaudenmayerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  3. In re Attorney General for Grant of Immunity & Order to Testify to GarberCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1972

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

Powered by the Exa API