Legal Opinion · Dissent

Dunn Appeal

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 17, 1959No. Appeal, No. 51Published

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion ry

Rhodes, P. J.:

The appellant in this proceeding has not been deprived of due process of law merely because he was not the named prosecutor and did not testify before the grand jury; and he has not been burdened with a greater obligation of demonstrating his good faith in the prosecution than if he had appeared before the grand jury, as the majority suggests. Heretofore this Court has noted that costs may be imposed by a petit jury upon persons not named in the indictment and not called as witnesses because such persons are afforded the opportunity to be heard on the rule…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. KocherSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
  2. Commonwealth v. ShafferSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
  3. Commonwealth v. DoyleSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
  4. Commonwealth v. ChartersSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
  5. Commonwealth v. FisherSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1938

1 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