Opinion
March 18, 1963.
April 18, 1963.
Criminal Law — Practice — Counsel for defendant — Representation of co-defendants by same counsel — Conflict of interest.
In this case, it was Held that a new trial was required for defendant because of the potentiality of harm to him arising from the fact that he and his co-defendants were represented by the same counsel although there was a serious conflict of interest between them.
Before RHODES, P.J., ERVIN, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, and FLOOD, JJ.
Appeals, Nos. 159 and 160, Oct. T., 1962, from judgment of Court of Oyer and Terminer and General Jail Delivery of Philadelphia County, June T., 1957, No. 776, and from order of Court of Quarter Sessions of the Peace of Philadelphia County, June T., 1957, No. 777, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Robert McKnight. Judgment reversed.
Indictment charging defendants with aggravated robbery and conspiracy. Before ULLMAN, J., without a jury.
Verdicts of guilty and judgments of sentence entered thereon. Defendant appealed.
Robert McKnight, appellant, in propria persona, submitted a brief.
Burton Satzberg, Assistant District Attorney, with him Arlen Specter, Assistant District Attorney, F. Emmett Fitzpatrick, Jr., First Assistant District Attorney, and James C. Crumlish, Jr., District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Argued March 18, 1963.
In Commonwealth v. Meehan, 409 Pa. 616, 187 A.2d 579 (1963), the Supreme Court granted a new trial to the present appellant's co-defendant Meehan because of the potentiality of harm to him arising from the fact that he and McKnight were represented by the same counsel although there was a serious conflict of interest between them as set forth in the dissenting opinion in Commonwealth v. Meehan, 198 Pa. Super. 558, at p. 567, 182 A.2d 212, at p. 217 (1962). For similar reasons a new trial is required for McKnight also.
The judgment is reversed and a new trial is ordered.