holding mere, allegations of a conflict of interest, however,,are insufficient to require replacement of a district attorney
How later courts described this case
- holding mere, allegations of a conflict of interest, however,,are insufficient to require replacement of a district attorney
- finding no Brady violation where the withheld statement was duplicative of other evidence in possession of defense
- “In a record containing thousands of pages, this court will not search every page to substantiate a party’s incomplete argument.”
- where trial court believes district attorney has a conflict, “the proper course of action [is] for the trial judge, through the president judge, to request the attorney general’s intervention in accordance with the statutory provisions of the Commonwealth Attorneys Act”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CASTILLE, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
The majority correctly remands this case to the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County for retrial. Nevertheless, I write separately only to note my disagreement with the majority’s sua sponte decision to appoint a judge to preside over the case who is not a member of the Allegheny Court of Common Pleas. This matter involves allegations of improper conduct by police officers from Allegheny County resulting in the death of Jon E. Gammage at a location within Allegheny County. Since the matter is to be remanded to the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, it should be directed to *658 the President Judge of the county to assign another judge from that county to preside over the trial.
While I agree with the majority’s sub silentio removal of the particular Allegheny County trial judge who originally presided over this matter (given the various pronouncements that he has made of record in this matter), the parties to this matter have not asked for the recusal of any member of the Allegheny County bench and there are no facts of record which would demonstrate that other members of the distinguished bench of Allegheny County would be unable to preside over this matter, notwithstanding the controversial nature of the charges. Therefore the special appointment of the former president judge of the Superior Court to preside over the retrial of this matter is wholly unnecessary at this juncture.