Defendant's Claim That He Was Unaware of the Surveillance After Defense Counsel Was Permitted to Cross-Examine the Officer
Can a Defendant Claim that He was Unaware of the Site of Surveillance After Defense Counsel was Permitted to Cross-Examine the Officer who Conducted the Surveillance ?
In Commonwealth v. Rodriquez, 543 Pa. 651, 658-59, 674 A.2d 225, 229 (1996), the Court held that the defendant had not sufficiently established that it was necessary for him to know the exact location of the surveillance site.
The Court noted that the trial court had allowed defense counsel to cross-examine the officer who conducted the surveillance based upon available information, including the fact that the location was one hundred feet north of a specified intersection, approximately ten to twenty feet above street level.
Moreover, other testimony established that a basketball court was between the surveillance location and the area the officers were watching.
Because such information was available to defense counsel, our Supreme Court held that counsel was able to conduct an effective cross-examination of the officer.