# Commonwealth v. Mulholland

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · October 10, 1997 · 549 Pa. 634

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9765558

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Petitioner, v. Milton MULHOLLAND, Respondent; COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Petitioner, v. Michael ALBERT, Respondent
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** October 10, 1997
- **Citations:** 549 Pa. 634; 702 A.2d 1027; 1997 Pa. LEXIS 2102
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Castille
- **Judges:** Flaherty, Zappala, Cappy, Castille, Nigro, Newman
- **Cited by:** 110 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/9765558

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9765558. Public record. Not legal advice.