# Commonwealth v. Pomponi

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · December 20, 1971 · 447 Pa. 154

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9749285

## Case

- **Full name:** Commonwealth, Appellant, v. Pomponi
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** December 20, 1971
- **Citations:** 447 Pa. 154; 284 A.2d 708; 1971 Pa. LEXIS 1164
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Bell
- **Judges:** Bell, Jones, Eaoex, O'Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy, Barbieri
- **Cited by:** 14 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/9749285

## Opinion text

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Bell:
Defendant is under indictment for murder. The lower Court authorized him to be examined by two psy *163 chiatrists, and thereafter defendant’s counsel notified that Court that defendant would plead insanity. Our Court now decides that upon examination by the Commonwealth’s psychiatrist in the presence of defendant’s counsel, defendant does not have to answer any questions which would in any way tend to incriminate him, or indeed divulge any information whatsoever. This ruling makes it virtually impossible for the Commonwealth to rebut the testimony of defendant’s psychiatrists, who were permitted to examine and question defendant about his feelings and absolutely anything else they desired—and hence makes it virtually impossible for the Commonwealth’s psychiatrist or other expert witnesses to testify about defendant’s sanity or insanity at the time he committed the murder.
The Supreme Court of the United States has pertinently held that a defendant who takes the witness stand waives his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Brown v. United States, 356 U.S. 148 (1958) ; Fitzpatrick v. United States, 178 U.S. 304 . These cases are far stronger for the Commonwealth than the instant ease and the issue involved herein, and the principles enunciated in Brown and Fitzpatrick undoubtedly control the instant case and require a reversal of the lower Court’s decision.
J dissent from what I believe to be this very one-sided and very unfair and very unrealistic and very unjustifiable decision.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9749285. Public record. Not legal advice.