Legal Opinion · Dissent

In the Interest of Davis

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 16, 1988No. 2681Published

1Dissent

CIRILLO, President Judge,

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. Although I agree that an adult in a revocation of probation hearing has the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses absent a showing of good cause, I cannot embrace the majority’s assertion that juveniles are entitled to this same right. Rather, an examination of applicable statutory and case law, as well as a consideration of the purposes and procedures of the juvenile system, leads me to the conclusion that juveniles have a more limited right to confrontation in probation revocation…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  2. In Re GAULTSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  3. Kent v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  4. McKeiver v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  5. Breed v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1975

6 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