holding that a defendant who is represented by counsel has no constitutional right to act as co-counsel
How later courts described this case
- holding that a defendant who is represented by counsel has no constitutional right to act as co-counsel
- holding that there is no constitutional right for a represented defendant to act as co-counsel
- fact that prospective juror had known victim’s mother in the past and was acquainted with a witness and with the wife of the prosecuting state trooper did not require disqualification
- three year pre-arrest delay “was reasonable in view of the initial difficulty experienced by the police in ascertaining the facts, [ajppellant’s absence from the Commonwealth, and the diligent efforts to locate all of the suspects”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Abrogated on other grounds by Commonwealth v. Burke, 566 Pa. 402 (2001)
490 A.2d 811, 818 (Pa. 1985), overruled on other grounds by Commonwealth v. Burke, 781 A.2d 1136
The opinion
NIX, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
Although I recognize that the United States Supreme Court is moving in the opposite direction, see Wainwright v. Witt, — U.S. —, 105 S.Ct. 844 , 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985), I remain convinced that the death qualification process produces juries which are both prosecution prone and unrepresentative of the community. See Commonwealth v. Szuchon, 506 Pa. 228, 260 , 484 A.2d 1365, 1382 (1984) (Nix, C.J., dissenting); Commonwealth v. Maxwell, 505 Pa. 152, 172-174 , 477 A.2d 1309, 1319 , cert. denied, — U.S. —, 105 S.Ct. 370 , 83 L.Ed.2d — (1984) (Nix, C.J., dissenting). The results of that procedure are particularly offensive here since, as the majority acknowledges, the death penalty should never have been a factor in the case.