Opposition Brief — Pennsylvania v. Campana

Counter-Statement of Questions Presented

COUNTER-STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS

PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

I. Whether the jurisdiction of Your Honorable

Court has been invoked in a timely and appropriate man-

ner?

II. Assuming arguendo that Question I is answered

in the affirmative, whether the Pennsylvania Supreme

Court failed to comply with the remand order of this

Honorable Court?

Argument

ARGUMENT

I. WHETHER THE JURISDICTION OF YOUR HON.

ORABLE COURT HAS BEEN INVOKED IN A TIMELY

AND APPROPRIATE MANNER?

Respondents submit that the jurisdiction of this Hon-

orable Court is not properly invoked since contrary to the

statement contained in Paragraph 1 of the “Statement of

Jurisdiction”, the writ of certiorari was not filed within

ninety (90) days of January 24, 1974, the date of the

entering of the opinion of the Supreme Court of Pennsyl-

vania. On the contrary, the record indicates that the peti-

tion was docketed in the Supreme Court of the United

States on the 25th day of April, 1974. It is respectfully

submitted, that the last day for filing was April 24, 1974;

and that, therefore, Petitioner has failed to comply with

the mandatory provisions of the applicable statute, 28

USCA, Sec. 2101.

Further, Respondents submit that the opinion of the

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in response to the remand

order of this Honorable Court is not properly subject to

review under 28 USCA, Sec. 1257(3) as we assume Peti-

tioner intends to aver, since that opinion specifically dis

claims reliance upon any federal ground whatsoever; and

therefore is outside the scope of the said statutory section

and not subject to challenge by Petitioner.

—_—

Argument

II. ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT QUESTION I IS

ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, WHETHER THE

PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT FAILED TO

COMPLY WITH THE REMAND ORDER OF THIS

HONORABLE COURT?

In its addendum opinion filed January 24, 1974 with

but one dissenting vote, the Supreme Court of Pennsyl-

vania responded to the inquiry of this Honorable Court as

to “consider whether its judgments are based on Federal

or State constitutional grounds, or both.” The Court

stated in its per curiam opinion “There are, of course, in-

dications in some of the opinions supporting our judg-

ments that a basis for the judgments was to be found in

Federal constitutional problems. However, there are also

separate reasons advanced for the result that do not stand

on a view of Federal Constitutional requirements.” (Ap-

pendix C of the Petition, p. 60). A reading of the various

opinions supports that position. The Pennsylvania Su-

preme Court carefully stated its concensus that in con-

sidering the questions put to it as to the ground of deci-

sion, that it had not rested its decision on either Federal

or State constitutional standards, but rather considered

that decision to rest on a determination that the State law

of Pennsylvania beyond the minimal requirements of the

Federal or State Constitution required the result. In so

doing, the Court cited numerous cases in holding “Our

supervisory power over state criminal proceedings is

broad, and this Court need not, as a matter of State law,

limit its decision to the minimum requirements of Federal

Constitutional law.” (Appendix C of Petition, p. 60.)

a

Argument

There can be little doubt of the Supreme Court of —-

vania’s power to so decide.

Petitioner’s argument apparently boils down to two

points. First, that the opinion is not responsive to the

terms of the remand order. That position, of course, begs

the question, since if the prior decision of the Pennsyl-

vania Supreme Court is deemed to have been decided

purely on the basis of solely non-constitutional state

grounds, the inquiry of this Honorable Court has been

entirely answered. Secondly, the Petitioner falls back on

the “. . . clear meaning which your Petitioner gleans from

the original holding of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court

. -” We submit that Petitioner is presumptuous in as-

serting that not only is its interpretation the only one pos-

sible, but in its ascribing devious and sinister motive

tions to the members of the highest Court of this Com-

monwealth in viewing their decision as an attempt to

“abrogate the fundamental concept of Federalism which

underlies our union. . .” The question really becomes

whether the Penneyivania Supreme Court’s interpreta

tion of its own decision may be challenged on the basis

of motivation and credibility. Were the State Supreme

Court interpreting a State statute that interpretation

would certainly be conclusive. Cramp v. Board of Public

Instruction of Orange County, 82 S. Ct. 278, 368 US.

278; Garner v. State of La., 82 S. Ct. 248, 368 U.S. 157;

Beiland v. Board of Public Education, School District of

Philadelphia, 78 S. Ct. 1317, 357 U.S. 399, rehearing

denied 79 S. Ct. 10, 358 U.S. 858. We submit that a

fortiori here where the same Court which decided the

case was asked to express the intent and ground of that

decision and with the joinder of all but the Justice who

Argument

dissented in the original case, states precisely what that

ground and intent was, we find it beyond logical compre-

hension to consider such statement anything but conclu-

sive unless as Petitioner seems to indicate, the credibility

of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is an issue.

Respondents respectfully submit that that review by

your Honorable Court directed to such an issue would

indeed “abrogate the fundamental concept of Federalism

which underlies our union . . .” for which Petitioner ex-

presses so much concern.

CONCLUSION

The below-named Respondents, for the reasons above

stated, respectfully request that the petition for certiorari

in this matter be denied, or that the decision of the Penn-

sylvania Supreme Court be affirmed.

Respectfully submitted,

EMMANUEL H. DimiITRIOU,

635 Walnut Street,

Reading, Pennsylvania,

G. ALAN KRAMER,

635 Walnut Street,

Reading, Pennsylvania,

Attorneys for Respondents:

Roger Smith, Leroy Stoltzfus,

Jr., Charles Corman, Robert A.

Marcinkowski, Charles Ginder.