Reply To: PA’s high court rules retroactive SORNA violates constitution

#23633
Avatar
terry brunson

The MUNIZ decision count was 5 – for it and 1 against it I thought it was 6- to – 1 decision one judge did not vote but said this :

CONCURRING STATEMENT PASC JUSTICE MUNDY
“Although I disagree with Muniz’s conclusions, they are now the law of this Commonwealth. As such, they must be applied in a meaningful way. No sensible reading of Muniz would permit the Commonwealth Court’s contrary judgment to stand. I therefore join the Court’s order in this case, because it correctly applies Muniz and reverses the Commonwealth Court’s order in this regard.”