Commonwealth v. Jongrass
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 63, Oct. T., 1897, by defendant, from judgment of O. & T. Lawrence Co., on verdict of guilty of murder. Indictment for murder.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 63, Oct. T., 1897, by defendant, from judgment of O. & T. Lawrence Co., on verdict of guilty of murder. Indictment for murder. Before WALLACE, P. J. At the trial defendant objected to the administration of the oath by Joseph Cuneo to James Carinne and other witnesses called for and on behalf of the commonwealth, for the following reasons: 1. That said Cuneo is not an officer of said court authorized by law to administer oaths to witnesses in said cause. 2. That the court cannot by mere direction authorize a person, sworn and acting as interpreter in said cause, to administer oaths…
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Cueiam,
There is no code of professional ethics that is peculiar to the criminal courts. There are no methods of practice to be tolerated there that are not equally entitled to recognition in the civil courts. Subtile distinctions that mark no substantial differences and that do not affect the merits of a controversy unless it may be to obscure or to defeat them, should not be allowed to thwart justice in the interests of disorder and crime. The assignments of error in this case raise two questions of this class. They touch no important right of a defendant. The first one relates to the…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Commonwealth v. KaiserSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Commonwealth v. GaborSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
- Commonwealth v. BuoySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
- Commonwealth v. HillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Commonwealth v. BrueSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.