defendant “was in custody -9- J-S42004-24 and under indictment at the time he was engaged in conversation by the informant.”
How later courts described this case
- defendant “was in custody -9- J-S42004-24 and under indictment at the time he was engaged in conversation by the informant.”
- suppression court’s determination is final except in the case of evidence not earlier available
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HUTCHINSON, Justice,
concurring.
I join the majority in this case because I believe the “interests of justice” are better served by reopening the suppression hearing to consider the Sixth Amendment claim than by suffering a possible collateral attack on the conviction by a charge of ineffectiveness.