Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hennessey v. Pennsylvania Board of Pardons

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 22, 1995Published

1DissentFriedman, Judge

I respectfully dissent. Because I believe that Article IV, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution requires a public hearing on all applications for clemency, I would grant the motion for summary relief filed by Petitioner Joseph Hennessey and compel the Pennsylvania Board of Pardons (Pardons Board) to hold a public hearing1 on his application for commutation to life on parole.2

In reaching a contrary result, the Majority asserts that Article IV, Section 9 creates rights only in members of the public, not in prisoners (Majority Op. at 220), and that Hennessey has no other federal or state…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Morrissey v. BrewerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional ComplexSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  3. Commonwealth v. EdmundsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  4. Connecticut Board of Pardons v. DumschatSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  5. John H. Block v. Edwin PotterCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1980

5 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