stating that, where jeopardy had not attached at a first suppression hearing, “there is certainly no constitutional bar to relitigating a suppression motion during ... a second prosecution”
How later courts described this case
- stating that, where jeopardy had not attached at a first suppression hearing, “there is certainly no constitutional bar to relitigating a suppression motion during ... a second prosecution”
- discussing the doctrine of coordinate jurisdiction
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HUTCHINSON, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the result, on the basis of the facts before us. I am concerned, however, that the majority in its effort to prevent “judges of equal jurisdiction from entering diverse rulings on the same evidence,” is merely adding another interlocutory appeal to the criminal justice process. See Commonwealth v. Dugger, 506 Pa. 537, 548 , 486 A.2d 382, 387 (1985) (Hutchinson, J. concurring).