Narrative Opinion Summary
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania addressed a motion by the attorney-general seeking a rule to show cause for an Information against Mr. Addison, the President of the Courts of Common Pleas in the fifth circuit. The motion was based on an affidavit from J. C. Lucas, an associate Judge, alleging that Addison wilfully prevented him from expressing his views to the grand jury after Addison had completed his charge. The Court unanimously determined that the situation did not constitute an indictable offense and therefore did not warrant the granting of an Information. However, the Court emphasized that every Judge has the right and duty to express their opinions on matters that arise in court. The Court further remarked that it would be improper for a presiding Judge to obstruct an associate Judge's exercise of this right. Consequently, the motion was refused.
Legal Issues Addressed
Non-Indictable Offense for Judicial Obstructionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the alleged act of preventing an associate judge from expressing his views did not constitute an indictable offense.
Reasoning: The Court unanimously determined that the situation did not constitute an indictable offense and therefore did not warrant the granting of an Information.
Right of Judges to Express Opinionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed that every judge has the right and duty to express their opinions on matters that arise in court, emphasizing that this right should not be obstructed by a presiding judge.
Reasoning: The Court emphasized that every Judge has the right and duty to express their opinions on matters that arise in court.