dismissing an “object[ion] to the use of the word ‘restrain’, and [the] suggest[ion that] ‘hesitate’ is a more appropriate standard”
How later courts described this case
- dismissing an “object[ion] to the use of the word ‘restrain’, and [the] suggest[ion that] ‘hesitate’ is a more appropriate standard”
- “evidence secured through the illegality should nevertheless have been admitted where it was obvious that without the illegality the Commonwealth would have obtained the information”
- denying relief on identical claim
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*290 MANDERINO, Justice
(concurring).
I concur in the majority’s affirmance of the judgment of sentence, however, as to the question raised concerning the admissability of the testimony of Samuel Winns and the introduction of the murder weapon, I do so for reasons different than those stated by the majority opinion. In the instant case I am of the opinion that the prosecution has successfully established that the evidence was free of any taint stemming from appellant’s illegal arrest because the prosecution established that the evidence in question was acquired through an independent source.