Opinion

Commonwealth v. Ludwig

  • 366 Pa. Super. 361
  • 531 A.2d 459
  • 581 A.2d 459
  • 1987 Pa. Super. LEXIS 8969
Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Sep 8, 1987
Status
Published
Author
Sole
On the bench
Cirillo, Brosky, Wieand, Olszewski, Sole, Montemuro, Tamilia, Popovich, Johnson
Cited by
20 cases
Authority
More cited than 9.0%

The opinion

DEL SOLE, Judge,

concurring:

I join the Opinion filed by my colleague, Judge Donald E. Wieand and the concurring statement by Frank J. Montemuro, Jr. I write separately only to suggest to the trial courts an alternative method of utilizing televised proceedings. When faced with the necessity of utilizing televised testimony of a child witness, courts should explore the possibility of keeping the witness in the courtroom before the jury. The defendant can observe the trial via closed circuit television. If possible, the jury should be able to observe the witness, not through the eyes of a television camera, but in person. See: Matter of Appeal in Pinal County Juvenile Action, 147 Ariz. 302 , 709 P.2d 1361 (App.1985); Arthur, Child Sexual Abuse, Vol. 37, No. 2, Juv. & Fam.Ct.J. pp. 32-33. (1986).

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.