# Commonwealth v. Bruno

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · June 27, 1969 · 435 Pa. 200

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9756956

## Case

- **Full name:** Commonwealth v. Bruno, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** June 27, 1969
- **Citations:** 435 Pa. 200; 255 A.2d 519; 1969 Pa. LEXIS 710
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Cohen
- **Judges:** O'Beien, Bell, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy
- **Cited by:** 23 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/9756956

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding in pre-Barker case without discussion of threshold factor that “the federal constitutional guarantee of a speedy criminal trial does not require that an incompetent accused be tried”

## Opinion text

Dissenting Opinion by
Mb. Justice Cohen:
When an accused is adjudged incompetent a procedure should be established whereby the incompetent defendant might demand a speedy trial as required by both Federal and State Constitutions.
I recognize that this may require the appointment of a guardian to act on behalf of the incompetent defendant and the establishment of procedures so that the decision to stand trial can be made intelligently, either by the incompetent defendant or some one acting on his behalf. The Commonwealth, when proper *214 ly requested, should not be permitted to refuse to proceed with trial because of a defendant’s incompetency and thereby deny defendant a right that is constitutionally guaranteed.
Just as in Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 , 86 S. Ct. 1045 , 16 L. Ed. 2d 84 (1966), where it was indicated that the juvenile “receives the worst of both worlds: that he gets neither the protections accorded to adults nor the solicitous care and regenerative treatment, postulated for children”; so, the incompetent receives neither the constitutional protections due him nor proper, confinement. I would use this litigation as a vehicle to enunciate the constitutional rights of incompetent defendants.
I dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9756956. Public record. Not legal advice.