Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Commonwealth v. Morley

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 24, 1995Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partDel Sole, Judge

I join the concurring and dissenting opinion authored by Judge Hudock and its reasoning that the testimony in question was not admissible by virtue of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. I write separately, however, to remark on the statement made in the majority opinion on page eight in footnote one which claims that the Pennsylvania constitutional right against self-incrimination found at Article 1, Section 9 is coextensive with the federal right.

The Majority and the Dissent rely on a footnote in Commonwealth v. Marra, 527 Pa. 526, 594 A.2d 646 (1991) which makes that…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. EdmundsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  2. Commonwealth v. CarreraSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1967
  3. COM., DEPT. OF ENV. RES. v. MarraSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  4. D'Elia v. Pennsylvania Crime CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989

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

Powered by the Exa API