# Commonwealth v. Brady

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · January 28, 1977 · 470 Pa. 420

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9747690

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Warren BRADY; COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Henry GEORGE
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** January 28, 1977
- **Citations:** 470 Pa. 420; 368 A.2d 699; 1977 Pa. LEXIS 539
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Manderino
- **Judges:** Jones, Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy, Nix, Manderino
- **Cited by:** 7 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9747690

## Opinion text

MANDERINO, Justice,
concurring.
I join in the opinion of Mr. Justice Nix. In doing so, I am assuming for the purposes of this case only that the Act of November 22, 1968, P.L. 1080, 19 P.S. § 640.1, et seq. (Supp.1975-76), referred to as the Immunity Act, is not in violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution. I make the assumption because the appellants have raised no issue concerning the constitutionality of the Act. Under the Immunity Act ancient modes of extracting statements from people are replaced with coercion by incarceration. A witness testifying against an accused to avoid incarceration presents the same potential for perjury as a witness whose testimony is secured by use of the rack, the turning of the screw, or the payment of a monetary bribe. Using this kind of testimony to convict an accused raises serious due process questions. For this reason I wish to reserve judgment concerning whether the Act violates the Pennsylvania Constitution.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9747690. Public record. Not legal advice.