GRAND JURY - POWER OF COURT IN PENNSYLVANIA TO DIRECT A GENERAL INVESTIGATION -WHERE NO SPECIFIC CRIME CHARGED

Authors

Michigan Law Review, University of Michigan Law School

Abstract

In a criminal case the judge of a Pennsylvania trial court was erroneously informed that the committing magistrate had discharged the accused's accomplices. The judge thereupon charged the magistrate with "fixing," but after investigation merely censured the latter for (1) failing to require bail in certain cases, and (2) remanding one defendant to a trial court without jurisdiction. The judge expressly said that he had no reason to believe the magistrate had acted from any corrupt motive. He nevertheless told a grand jury that a magistrate's violation of law had come to his attention and ordered the jury to investigate whether any magistrates were guilty of misconduct or malfeasance in office. The mayor of Pittsburgh as chief magistrate petitioned for a writ of prohibition, alleging that the grand jury's investigation, with its seizures of records and dockets, had paralyzed the administration of justice in the magistrates' courts. Held, upon the facts the judge had no power to order the investigation. Petition of McNair, 324 Pa. 48, 187 A. 498 (1936).

Recommended Citation

Michigan Law Review, GRAND JURY - POWER OF COURT IN PENNSYLVANIA TO DIRECT A GENERAL INVESTIGATION -WHERE NO SPECIFIC CRIME CHARGED, 35 Mich. L. Rev. 1018 (1937).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol35/iss6/20