“[T]he Barr-Walker proceedings are criminal rather than civil in nature and constitute an essentially independent rather than a sentencing proceeding. The Act leaves no doubt, both in its language and purpose, that -it is a criminal statute and what is imposed under its authority is criminal punishment”
How later courts described this case
- “[T]he Barr-Walker proceedings are criminal rather than civil in nature and constitute an essentially independent rather than a sentencing proceeding. The Act leaves no doubt, both in its language and purpose, that -it is a criminal statute and what is imposed under its authority is criminal punishment”
- “It is undoubtedly true that the guarantee of the right of confrontation and cross-examination does not apply to sentencing pursuant to a criminal conviction.”
- 'due process cannot be satisfied by partial or niggardly procedural protections' in proceedings under Pennsylvania's Sex Offender Act
- quoted in Specht v. Patterson, supra at 609
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
Appellant was denied due process in that he was denied the right to confront and cross-examine his accusers. Solely because of this violation of his constitutional rights his commitment is invalid. I therefore agree that the order of the district court be vacated and that a reasonable time be allowed the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to take further appellate steps in this cause or to proceed with a new trial of appellant on the merits. I specifically disagree with the proposition that there is any question in this case whether appellant was entitled to a jury trial. As Judge Staley has shown, he had no such right.