## Facts

- In a murder prosecution against Ethel Kravitz, the trial court ordered the prosecution to allow the defense pretrial access to certain evidentiary materials in the Commonwealth’s possession.
- The order included a requirement that the prosecution make available “photographs of fingerprints, if any,” for defense examination and inspection before trial.
- The District Attorney petitioned the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania for a writ of prohibition to prevent enforcement of the discovery order.
- Kravitz intervened in the extraordinary-writ proceeding; the Attorney General and the Pennsylvania District Attorneys’ Association participated as amici.

## Issues

1. Whether a trial court in a criminal case may compel the prosecution to provide the defense pretrial access to “photographs of fingerprints, if any,” in the District Attorney’s possession.
2. Whether a criminal defendant has an absolute right to pretrial inspection of prosecution evidence, or whether such inspection depends on the trial court’s discretion.
3. What relief, if any, is appropriate through prohibition when a trial court issues a criminal discovery order alleged to exceed permissible bounds.

## Decision

- The court amended the trial court’s discovery order to remove the requirement that the prosecution provide pretrial access to “photographs of fingerprints, if any.”
- The court discharged the rule and refused to issue a writ of prohibition.
- A concurring opinion explained that Pennsylvania law recognizes no absolute defense right to pretrial inspection of Commonwealth evidence, while confirming that trial courts possess discretionary authority to permit inspection in appropriate circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- A criminal defendant in Pennsylvania has no absolute right to examine and inspect, before trial, evidence in the possession of the Commonwealth.
- A trial court with jurisdiction over a criminal case has discretionary power to permit pretrial inspection of physical or documentary evidence held by the prosecution when circumstances warrant.
- Appellate intervention through extraordinary writ practice may be limited to modifying an overbroad aspect of a discovery order rather than barring the order in its entirety.
- A court may treat certain prosecution materials—such as fingerprint photographs—as improper subjects for compelled pretrial production, even where some discretionary discovery may otherwise be allowed.

## Conclusion

The court confirmed that pretrial criminal discovery is not a matter of right in Pennsylvania but rests in trial-court discretion, and it narrowed a discovery order by barring compelled pretrial disclosure of fingerprint photographs while declining to prohibit the trial court’s remaining discovery directives.


In re Di Joseph's Petition, 145 A.2d 187 (Pa. 1958)