Appeal from judgment of sentence of Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, of Allegheny County, Dec. T., 1957, No. 72, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Robert H. Jackson.
John J. Dean and Sallie Ann Radick, Assistant Public Defenders, and George H. Ross, Public Defender, for appellant.
Carol Mary Los and Robert L. Eberhardt, Assistant District Attorneys, and Robert W. Duggan, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Jones, C. J. Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy, Nix and Manderino, JJ. Opinion by Mr. Chief Justice Jones. Mr. Justice Nix concurs in the result. Mr. Justice Manderino dissents.
This is a direct appeal from the denial of nunc pro tunc post-trial motions in the court below.
On February 27, 1958, appellant was adjudged guilty of murder in the first degree. On June 26, 1958, he was sentenced to life imprisonment.*fn*
On October 8, 1964, appellant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging, inter alia, that his warrantless arrest was illegal, that the statements which he made to police officers were involuntary, that he was without custodial counsel and that he had not been advised of his right to remain silent. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus was denied on September 2, 1965.
Appellant thereafter filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the federal district court. That petition was denied on January 3, 1967.
In May of 1969 appellant filed a Post Conviction Hearing Act petition. Again he alleged, inter alia, that he had been unlawfully arrested and that evidence introduced against him was obtained by reason of the unlawful arrest, that statements introduced against him were obtained in the absence of counsel and that his privilege against self-incrimination was thus denied. From the denial of that petition on September 9, 1970, appellant appealed to this Court. This Court reversed the denial of the PCHA petition and remanded with directions to allow the filing of post-trial motions nunc pro tunc. Commonwealth v. Jackson, 443 Pa. 553, 279 A.2d 163 (1971).
Appellant, in this appeal, poses the questions whether the police had probable cause to arrest him and whether his custodial statement was, therefore, properly admitted into evidence. He also queries whether the extra-judicial statement admitted into evidence at his 1958 trial can be ...