# Commonwealth v. BRADY

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · June 21, 1974 · 228 Pa. Super. 233

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9541598

## Case

- **Full name:** Commonwealth, Appellant, v. Brady Et Al.
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** June 21, 1974
- **Citations:** 228 Pa. Super. 233; 323 A.2d 866; 1974 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1577
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Wright, Watkins, Jacobs, Hoffman, Spaulding, Cercone, Spaeth
- **Cited by:** 7 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/9541598

## Opinion text

Opinion
Per Curiam,
The above-captioned case is an appeal from the order of the Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, Bucks County, denying the petition of the Attorney General of Pennsylvania and the District Attorney of *234 Bucks County for witness immunity. The defendants, Warren Brady and Henry George, are supervisors of a Bucks County Township and they are charged with extortion and prohibitive acts by a public official. The prosecution sought immunity for two witnesses to testify to being extorted and receiving money from the supervisors. The court below found that the Immunity Act in the circumstances did not empower the granting of immunity to these witnesses and in a very able opinion held that the immunity to these witnesses did not fall within the provisions of the Immunity Act of 1968, 19 P.S. §§640.1 and 640.2.
This Court on September 10, 1973, quashed the appeal and on January 9, 1974, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania returned the case to the Superior Court for consideration on the merits.
Offering immunity at any time is a dangerous practice, human nature being what it is, and is a clear invitation to defendants to commit perjury. It is the kind of practice too, that is certain to be abused by law enforcement officials to the detriment of innocent people. It was initiated as a weapon against organized crime and racketeering and should be strictly limited to that purpose. This case does not fall in that category.
We would affirm on the very able opinion of Judge Ludwig, of the court below.
Wright, P. J., and Spaulding, J., did .not participate in the decision of this case.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9541598. Public record. Not legal advice.