Opinion
Submitted March 17, 1965.
September 29, 1965.
Criminal law — Constitutional law — 6th and 14th Amendments — Lack of counsel — Police interrogation — Failure to warn accused — Rule of Escobedo v. Illinois — Retroactive effect.
1. While the request for the assistance of counsel by a suspect during an accusatory investigation is not a conclusive factor in determining the admissibility of a confession under the rule stated in Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, such rule should not be applied retrospectively to convictions finally sustained prior to the announcement of the rule on June 22, 1964.
2. Commonwealth v. Negri, 419 Pa. 117, followed. [149]
Criminal law — Constitutional law — 6th and 14th Amendments — Criminal prosecutions — Lack of counsel — Preliminary hearing.
3. In the absence of a showing of prejudice arising therefrom, the fact that a person charged with crime does not have counsel at the preliminary hearing before a committing magistrate does not, in itself, constitute lack of due process or violation of any constitutional guarantee.
Mr. Justice COHEN dissented.
Before BELL, C. J. MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN and ROBERTS, JJ.
Appeal, No. 29, March T., 1965, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, April T., 1964, No. 736, in case of Commonwealth ex rel. George P. Geiger v. James F. Maroney, Superintendent. Order affirmed.
Habeas corpus.
Petition dismissed, order by KEIM, J. Relator appealed.
George P. Geiger, appellant, in propria persona.
William F. Caruthers, Assistant District Attorney, and Richard E. McCormick, District Attorney, for appellee.
Petitioner challenges his 1960 conviction in reliance on the decision in Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S. Ct. 1758 (1964), and Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449, 77 S.Ct. 1356 (1957). He further alleges a pretrial deprivation of the right to counsel on the basis of the decision in White v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 59, 83 S.Ct. 1050 (1963).
We find no merit in petitioner's contentions. Having concluded in Commonwealth v. Negri, 419 Pa. 117, 213 A.2d 670 (1965), that the mandate of Escobedo is not to be given retrospective application, Negri is here controlling. Petitioner's contention in reliance on Mallory is foreclosed by our decision in Commonwealth ex rel. Sleighter v. Banmiller, 392 Pa. 133, 139 A.2d 918 (1958).
Cf. Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568, 81 S. Ct. 1860 (1961); Gallegos v. Nebraska, 342 U.S. 55, 72 S.Ct. 141 (1951).
Finally, the record fails to disclose any prejudice arising from petitioner's lack of counsel at the preliminary hearing and, therefore, no violation of his constitutional rights resulted. See Commonwealth ex rel. Butler v. Rundle, 416 Pa. 321, 206 A.2d 283 (1965).
Order affirmed.
Mr. Justice COHEN dissents.