explaining that limited criminal jurisdiction extended to AG in Commonwealth Attorney's Act reflected legislature’s concerns that it not “im-ping[e] upon the jurisdiction and duties of the constitutionally created office of county-elected district attorney”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that limited criminal jurisdiction extended to AG in Commonwealth Attorney's Act reflected legislature’s concerns that it not “im-ping[e] upon the jurisdiction and duties of the constitutionally created office of county-elected district attorney”
- disqualification of attorney general from prosecution was final, appealable order, even though county district attorney had filed information charging the same offenses based on the same incident
- dismissal of information affirmed where information signed by a person who lacked authority to prosecute
- the legislative intent of the act is to clarify the authority of the Attorney General
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WICKERSHAM, Judge,
dissenting:
I would reverse the lower court which granted a petition filed by appellee Bruce Carsia quashing the criminal information. As the Attorney General argued:
The Attorney General, as chief law enforcement officer of the Commonwealth, had the authority to prosecute Bruce Carsia, an attorney at law, for attempting to bribe two police officers and fix a preliminary hearing. The prosecutorial and investigative powers of the Attorney General as determined by decisions of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, are broad and vast. The lower court erred by concluding otherwise and by quashing the criminal informations filed by the Attorney General.
The Attorney General was authorized to investigate and prosecute Carsia by virtue of the Commonwealth Attorneys Act. Carsia’s actions of trying to fix a preliminary hearing was an attempt to influence or benefit from the influencing of a state official or employee. Additionally, Carsia’s actions amount to a violation of 18 Pa.C.S. § 911 (corrupt organizations). Finally as a licensed attorney at law, Carsia was a state official as that term is defined in the Commonwealth Attorneys Act.
*261 Agents of the Attorney General’s Bureau of Criminal Investigation are vested with full police power of investigation and arrest. Therefore, the investigation and subsequent arrest of Carsia by Agents of the Bureau of Criminal Investigation was lawful.
Carsia had no standing to challenge whether the Attorney General, the chief law enforcement officer of the Commonwealth has the authority to prosecute him. Such a challenge rests with the district attorney. Furthermore, the district attorney agreed that the Attorney General should investigate and prosecute the case sub judice. 1
I agree.
. Brief for Appellant at 8-9.