finding no discovery violation when judicial officer did not explain how requested information would be significant or relevant
How later courts described this case
- finding no discovery violation when judicial officer did not explain how requested information would be significant or relevant
- acknowledging that a due process claim can be waived for failure to raise it in a timely fashion
- generally discussing Judiciary’s independence within political system
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled by In re Carney, 621 Pa. 476 (2013)
For these reasons, we conclude that the constructions of the conduct rules in Harrington and Cicchetti are unsustainable, and we accordingly overrule those decisions.
The opinion
CAPPY, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
I join the majority opinion in affirming the decision of the Court of Judicial Discipline. I disagree, however, with the *209 decision of the majority to prospectively bar court-appointed employees from participation in judicial retention elections.
Retention elections are designed to insulate sitting jurists from being forced to engage in partisan politics. Barring court-appointed employees from involvement in retention election activities on the basis that such involvement creates the appearance of improper political activity undermines the perception that retention elections are non-political. As I strongly believe that greater strides should be taken to enhance the public belief that retention elections are not political, I am compelled to dissent from that portion of the majority opinion.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein, I join in part and dissent in part to the majority opinion.