addressing the issue of “whether the amended version of [section] 9728(g) can be applied retroactively to uphold the trial court’s award of transportation costs” and concluding that the “penal statute” cannot be applied retroactively “as such application would constitute an ex post facto law.”
How later courts described this case
- addressing the issue of “whether the amended version of [section] 9728(g) can be applied retroactively to uphold the trial court’s award of transportation costs” and concluding that the “penal statute” cannot be applied retroactively “as such application would constitute an ex post facto law.”
- refusing to consider issue of whether appellant was entitled to relief under Pennsylvania Constitution where appellant failed to present specific argument based on constitutional provision allegedly violated
- refusing to consider issue of whether appellant was entitled to relief under the Pennsylvania Constitution whenever appellant failed to present a specific argument based on the constitutional provision allegedly violated
- addressing the issue of “whether the amended version of [section] 9728(g
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice SAYLOR,
concurring.
I join the majority opinion.
My only addition is to highlight the tension between the testimonial litmus of Craivford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), and the plain terms of the Sixth Amendment. See U.S. Const., amend. VI (“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him”). The many open questions in the wake of the immense shift in Confrontation Clause jurisprudence heralded by Crawford leaves lower-tier federal courts and state courts in a difficult position in terms of predicting the appropriate limits of this critical Sixth Amendment provision, as newly construed. Accord Michael H. Graham, 30B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid. § 7033 (2009).
I credit the majority opinion for doing the best job possible in such circumstances.
Chief Justice CASTILLE joins this concurring opinion.