Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

461 Pa. 327

336 A.2d 308

Commonwealth v. Abrams

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 17, 1975

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1975-04-17

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““During the contempt proceedings in the trial court [following his refusal to testify], [appellant] was without the assistance of legal counsel. Moreover, he was not advised of his right to such assistance and admittedly did not knowingly and intelligently waive this right. Under these circumstances, the proceedings violated due process and render the adjudication of contempt null and void. See Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 , 92 S.Ct. 2006 , 32 L.Ed.2d 530 (1972), and Commonwealth v. Bethea, 445 Pa. 161 , 282 A.2d 246 (1971).””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Commonwealth v. Crawford

Relies on Argersinger v. Hamlin · Commonwealth v. BETHEA

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1975-04-17

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently October 2015

18 state decisions

10019751980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 OPINION OF THE COURT

EAGEN, Justice.

¶2 Harry Abrams was called to testify as a Commonwealth witness in the trial of the Commonwealth v. Virgil Coonfare, who was charged with having participated in the commission of a robbery with Abrams in Beaver County. 1 When Abrams refused to testify saying, “I stand on the Fifth Amendment”, he was warned by the trial judge that his prior plea of guilty to the robbery charge prevented him from then claiming any privilege. When Abrams persisted in his refusal to testify, he was adjudged guilty of “criminal contempt” and given a prison sentence of six months on the contempt adjudication, this sentence to run consecutively to the prison sentence previously imposed on the robbery conviction. The adjudication of contempt and sentence imposed must be reversed.

¶3 During the contempt proceedings in the trial court, Abrams was without the assistance of legal counsel. Moreover, he was not advised of his right to such assistance and admittedly did not knowingly and intelligently waive this right. Under these circumstances, the proceedings violated due process and render the adjudication of contempt null and void. See Argersinger v. Hamlin, *329 407 U.S. 25, 92 S.Ct. 2006, 32 L.Ed.2d 530 (1972), and Commonwealth v. Bethea, 445 Pa. 161, 282 A.2d 246 (1971).

¶4 Order and judgment reversed.

JONES, C. J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
1

¶5 . Abrams had previously plead guilty to having committed the robbery and had been sentenced to prison.

/461/pa/327 · .json · Public domain