I want to talk about a Supreme Court of Pennsylvania case called the Commonwealth versus Buchanan. This is a case where an individual was accused of statutory rape, corruption of a minor, and endangering the welfare of a child. The preliminary hearing was held in Luzerne County at the hearing the Commonwealth over the defense counsel's objection, presented the hearsay testimony of the investigating police officer. The investigating police officer recounted the alleged criminal incident as it was alleged to have been related to him by the victim who was a seven-year-old child. The victim, it is important to note, did not testify.
The District Judge ruled that the Commonwealth had established a probable cause case. Thereafter, the defendant filed a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of Common Pleas. At the hearing on the habeas corpus, the Court of Common Pleas found that the preliminary hearing was conducted properly. The defendant filed a petition for review in the Supreme Court which was transferred to the Superior Court. After the Superior Court denied the petition for review, the defendant petitioned the Supreme Court for allowance of appeal which was granted.
In this particular case, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania stated that fundamental due process requires that no adjudication be based solely on hearsay evidence. They also stated that at least a prima fascia case must be established against the person accused of the crime. In this particular case, the testimony of a witness as to what a third-party told him about an alleged criminal act is clearly inadmissible hearsay. The fundamental idea behind this decision is that a lawyers cross examination of a witness may expose fatal weaknesses in the state's case and may lead the district judge to refuse to bind the case over.
In addition, the preliminary hearing against a witness is a vital impeachment tool for use in cross-examination of the states witness at the trial. Finally, it allows a defense attorney to preserve testimony favorable to the accused. All of these issues related to whether the individual who has a preliminary hearing must and can confront a witness who is accusing them of a crime. Clearly in this case, the right of a defendant to confront a witness who is accusing them of the crime has been preserved. Please note, there are exceptions to this rule where the accused has no right to a preliminary hearing. These issues include 1) The accused is a fugitive from justice, 2) there is a presentment of an investigating grand jury directly to an indicting grand jury, and 3) the indicting grand jury makes presentment based on personal knowledge of the jurors.