![]() There, a new trial was granted on a record that contained nothing other than a colloquy which was manifestly defective under the requirements of Pa.R.Crim.Proc. This form was also signed by respondent's counsel and by the trial judge who had conducted the colloquy.Īlthough the Superior Court acknowledged that respondent had signed the form reflecting respondent's full understanding of the right to a jury trial, the Superior Court *664 felt obliged to order a new trial under this Court's decision in Commonwealth v. Although the judge explored respondent's understanding of the fact that "a jury would consist of twelve people who would be selected and sworn from a larger panel of jurors from all over ," he did not explore respondent's understanding of either the fact that the jury's verdict would have to be unanimous or the fact that respondent could participate in jury selection.ĭespite the deficient colloquy, the record also is clear that, at the close of the colloquy, respondent signed a written form which states that respondent "fully understand" the ingredients of a jury trial, including the unanimity and defendant-participation requirements which were not explained in the colloquy. ![]() The record is clear that respondent's understanding of these "essential ingredients" is not reflected in the on-the-record colloquy mandated by Pa.R.Crim.Proc. For the waiver to be "knowing and intelligent," the defendant must know "the essential ingredients of a jury trial" "the requirements that the jury be chosen from members of the community (a jury of one's peers), that the verdict be unanimous, and that the accused be allowed to participate in the selection of the jury panel."Ĭommonwealth v. Our Rules of Criminal Procedure require a trial judge to ascertain whether a defendant's waiver of the right to trial by jury "is a knowing and intelligent waiver, and such colloquy shall appear on the record." Pa.R.Crim.Proc. The Superior Court granted relief on the *663 ground that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to object to a defective jury-trial-waiver colloquy. Respondent was found guilty of the charges by a court sitting without a jury. The Commonwealth seeks allowance of appeal from an order of the Superior Court granting respondent a new trial on burglary, robbery, kidnapping, and related charges. ![]() Hubert David Yollin, Abington, for respondent.īefore O'BRIEN, C.J., and ROBERTS, NIX, LARSEN, FLAHERTY, McDERMOTT and HUTCHINSON, JJ. 661(1982) 450 A.2d 973 COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Petitioner,
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |