explaining the rationale for this presumption
How later courts described this case
- explaining the rationale for this presumption
- endorsing the procedural rights of a juvenile enumerated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Kent v. United States, supra
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MANDERINO, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. The majority proceeds on the false assumption that judges have control of their emotions superior to laymen. The majority states, “[wjhile the photographs instantly may have been deemed inflammatory, ... a judge, as the trier of fact, possesses the training, skill, and experience to enable him to view such photographs in a manner so as to preclude prejudicial opinions based on emotion.” (at 178). I must emphatically disagree. Judges receive training in the procedures of fairness but I know of no judge who was trained in law school — if indeed, one ever could be — in *184 how to react more fairly to inflammatory stimuli than other adult individuals. Commonwealth v. Green, 464 Pa. 557, 566 , 347 A.2d 682, 686 (1975) (Manderino, J., dissenting opinion.)