holding that there was improper bolstering when two attorneys for Commonwealth witnesses took the stand and testified that their clients had agreed to tell the truth at trial
How later courts described this case
- holding that there was improper bolstering when two attorneys for Commonwealth witnesses took the stand and testified that their clients had agreed to tell the truth at trial
- holding no legitimate expectation of privacy in apartment where defendant was only occasional visitor to apartment, had no possessory or proprietary interest in it, and had been present for only 10-15 minutes prior to search
- finding improper bolstering where a Commonwealth witness’s lawyer assured the jury that the -witness had agreed to testify truthfully
- improper for Commonwealth to invite prejudicial inferences in situations where an accomplice witness waives his Fifth Amendment rights and takes the stand to testify and the defendant fails to testify in his defense
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Commonwealth v. Choi Chun Lam, 453 Pa. Super. 497 (1996)
Id. On appeal, this court distinguished the circumstances of the case from those in Tann and Bricker and held that the admission of such testimony by the co-conspirator was not erroneous.
The opinion
ROBERTS, Chief Justice,
concurring.
I agree that appellant is entitled to a new trial on the ground that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to the testimony of the attorneys of wit *605 nesses for the Commonwealth regarding their clients’ waivers of the privilege against self incrimination. However, in rejecting appellant’s suppression claim, the majority unnecessarily holds that the challenged evidence was lawfully seized as having been in plain view. Appellant had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the home where he was arrested, and thus the search in no respect violated, or could have violated, appellant’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. See Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 , 101 S.Ct. 1642 , 68 L.Ed.2d 38 (1981); Commonwealth v. Stanley, 498 Pa. 326, 339 , 446 A.2d 583, 589 (1982) (Roberts, J., joined by Flaherty, J., concurring).
NIX, J., joins in this concurring opinion.