# Commonwealth v. Johnson

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · November 25, 1992 · 533 Pa. 24

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6264750

## Case

- **Full name:** In the Interest of Anthony McFALL at No. 1466, C.P. Phila. Cty., Juv. Div., No. 6403-86-9 In the Interest of Robert WISE at No. 1467, C.P. Phila. Cty., Crim. Div., No. 2759-86-4 Juv. No. 268347 In the Interest of Anthony WHETSTONE at No. 1468, C.P. Phila. Cty., Crim. Div., Juv. 8266-85-10 Juv. No. 242017 In the Interest of Perry WALLACE at No. 1469, C.P. Phila. Cty., Crim. Div., Juv.Pet. 9577-85-12 Juv. No. 266159 In the Interest of Christopher VINCENT at No. 1470, C.P. Phila. Cty., Crim. Div., Juv. 2817-86-4 Juv. No. 268373 In the Interest of Gilbert ORSINI at No. 1471, C.P. Phila. Cty., Crim. Div., 9609-85-12, Juv. No. 266189 In the Interest of Jamal CONNOR at No. 1472, C.P. Phila. Cty., Crim. Div., Juv. 3018-86-4, Juv. No. 257899 In the Interest of James MILES at No. 1473, C.P. Phila. Cty., Crim. Div., Juv. 5546-85-7 Juv. No. 260135 In the Interest of Terry FOSTER at No. 1474, C.P. Phila. Cty., Crim. Div., Juv. 2961-85-4 Juv. No. 260847 COMMONWEALTH v. Leon JOHNSON at No. 1475, C.P. Phila. Cty., Crim. Div., No. 691-693 March Term, 1986 COMMONWEALTH v. Ronald PIERCE at No. 1476, C.P. Phila. Cty., Crim. Div., No. 2235-2238 August Term, 1986 COMMONWEALTH v. Robert JACOBS at No. 1466, C.P. Phila. Cty., Crim. Div., No. 1904-1905 June Term, 1986 COMMONWEALTH v. Robert LEWIS at No. 1478, C.P. Phila. Cty., Crim. Div., No. 340-344 July Term, 1986 COMMONWEALTH v. Ali SCOTT at No. 1479, C.P. Phila. Cty., Crim. Div., No. 3081-3086 May Term, 1986 COMMONWEALTH v. David GILES at No. 1480, C.P. Phila. Cty., Crim.Div., No. 3237-3239 April Term, 1986 COMMONWEALTH v. Lawrence GOUCH at No. 1481, C.P. Phila. Cty., Crim. Div., No. 782 Nov. Term, 1986 COMMONWEALTH v. Michael JENKINS at No. 1483, C.P. Phila. Cty., Crim.Div., No. 2282 Nov. Term, 1986 COMMONWEALTH v. Michael HATTON at No. 1484, C.P. Phila. Cty., Crim. Div., No. 2596-2601 August Term, 1986 COMMONWEALTH v. Cedric BOHANNON at No. 1485, C.P. Phila. Cty., Crim. Div., No. 2642-2645 March Term, 1986 COMMONWEALTH v. Edward BROWN at No. 1486, C.P. Phila. Cty., Crim. Div., No. 856-858 May Term, 1986 COMMONWEALTH v. Patrick GARRETT at No. 1487, C.P. Phila. Cty., Crim. Div., No. 309-314 May Term 1986 COMMONWEALTH v. James M. ROSSER at No. 1489, C.P. Phila. Cty., Crim. Div., No. 1852-1860 March Term, 1986 COMMONWEALTH v. Jose TORRES at No. 1490, C.P. Phila. Cty., Crim. Div., No. 2138-2146 March Term, 1986 COMMONWEALTH v. Marcus WARD at No. 1491, C.P. Phila. Cty., Crim. Div., No. 291-293 May Term, 1986 COMMONWEALTH v. Aaron WHITE at No. 1492, C.P. Phila. Cty., Crim. Div., No. 296-298 May Term, 1986 COMMONWEALTH v. James WALKER at No. 1493, C.P. Phila. Cty., Crim. Div., No. 286-290 May Term, 1986 COMMONWEALTH v. Ricardo SEARS at No. 1494, C.P. Phila. Cty., Crim. Div., No. 2258-2266 Aug. Term, 1986 COMMONWEALTH v. Dennis MASON at No. 1495, C.P. Phila. Cty., Crim. Div., No. 396-403 December Term, 1986 COMMONWEALTH v. Ralph RIVERA at No. 1496, C.P. Phila. Cty., Crim. Div., No. 1489-1490 February Term, 1986 COMMONWEALTH v. George H. MALENEY at No. 1497, C.P. Phila. Cty., Crim. Div., No. 2333-2334 November Term, 1986 COMMONWEALTH v. Brian BRAXTON at No. 1159, C.P. Phila. Cty., Crim. Div., No. 2254-2257 August Term, 1986 Appeals of COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** November 25, 1992
- **Citations:** 533 Pa. 24; 617 A.2d 707
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Papadakos
- **Judges:** Cappy, Files, Flaherty, Larsen, McDermott, Nix, Papadakos, Zappala
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6264750

## Opinion text

PAPADAKOS, Justice,
concurring.
Although I join in the rationale of the majority and the conclusion, I must write separately to express my complete dissatisfaction with the reliance of the majority on the standard of “appearance of impropriety” as compelling the grant of new proceedings to the Appellants.
As the majority points out, Cunningham was engaged in a blatant potential conflict of interest in conducting criminal proceedings while she was acting covertly on behalf of prosecutors to obtain incriminating information against her colleagues on the bench.
I do not see an “appearance of impropriety” on the part of a judge who is acting covertly. The public is not aware of the conduct at the time of its commission, therefore, there cannot be an “appearance” of anything. Rather, I view the conduct of Cunningham as abhorrent and a complete denial of a fair trial to those brought before her while she sat as a judge in the criminal court. I view this as actual misconduct at the time of its commission and not as an appearance of impropriety long after the commission of the misconduct.
Every judge must know that you can’t play both sides of the fence without bringing into focus the question of impartiality. Under such circumstances, every judge must know that recusal is in order. Cunningham’s refusal to recuse and ask for assignment to another division of the court amounts to misconduct in my view. The possibility that such a reassignment *39 may have brought to light her clandestine operations must be weighed lightly in comparison with the heavy adherence to which we ascribe the principles of a fair and impartial judge presiding over the fate of those brought before the bar of the criminal courts. Their rights cannot be sacrificed for the sake of possibly bringing to justice other miscreants.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6264750. Public record. Not legal advice.