permitting parties surprised by adverse statements made by their own witnesses to cross-examine them based on prior inconsistent statements
How later courts described this case
- permitting parties surprised by adverse statements made by their own witnesses to cross-examine them based on prior inconsistent statements
- finding the death penalty not disproportionate where it was imposed in eight of nine similar cases
- finding death penalty proportionate where it was imposed in eight out of nine similar cases
- statements were “in the furtherance of a conspiracy, for [they] were made in the course of flight from the scene of the crime and in the concurrent course of dividing up the proceeds of the robbery”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NIX, Chief Justice,
concurring.
I regret that the majority is still unwilling to reconsider the argument that the death qualification process creates juries which are prosecution-prone and unrepresentative of the community. See Commonwealth v. Simon, 509 Pa. 548 , 506 A.2d 392 (1986) (Nix, C.J., and Zappala, J., dissent *360 ing statements); see also Commonwealth v. Maxwell, 505 Pa. 152, 170 , 477 A.2d 1309, 1319 (Nix, C.J., dissenting), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 971 , 105 S.Ct. 370 , 83 L.Ed.2d 306 (1984). However, since it appears that the procedure will remain the law of this Commonwealth until some other tribunal sees the wisdom of this argument, I therefore concur in the result.
Justice Zappala joins in this concurring opinion.