(dissenting).
. I dissent because the majority opinion completely misses the point of appellant’s argument. Prior to trial, ap*567pellant moved to suppress a confession made to the police, and all evidence obtained as a result, contending that the confession was involuntary. He also contended that the confession violated Rule 130 of Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure in that it was the product of an unnecessary delay between arrest and arraignment. Relief was denied and the confession was introduced into evidence at appellant’s trial by the prosecution.
Appellant, a fifteen year old boy, was arrested on June 16, 1971, at about 1:50 p.m. The police had information that the appellant participated in an incident several days earlier during which another fifteen year old boy was fatally shot by a friend of the appellant.
The appellant was not arraigned until sometime during the morning of the day after his arrest. The delay between arrest and arraignment was a period of at least seventeen hours. During the afternoon and evening of the day of his arrest, and the early morning hours of the following day, the appellant was confined almost continuously in a small interrogation room sitting on a steel chair riveted to the floor. During periods in which he was left alone, he was at all times handcuffed to the chair. He was given no opportunity to sleep, but he was fed and permitted to use the bathroom. Appellant was intermittently interrogated and left alone. During appellant’s custody, seven different policemen participated at one time or another in the interrogation. After the appellant had been in custody for about twelve hours, during which time he made no inculpatory statements, the police decided to contact the appellant’s mother for the first time for the purpose of asking her to give permission for her son to take a lie detector test.
Appellant’s mother was then brought to the Police Administration Building. She was not informed at that time about her son’s constitutional rights, but was told that her son was involved in a homicide. Appellant’s mother was permitted to see her son at about 2:45 a.m. *568At the beginning of this meeting, one of the interrogating officers told the appellant to tell his mother what happened. Appellant’s mother visited with the appellant for a short period. Thereafter, the appellant’s mother, upon the request of the police, signed a waiver form giving permission for a lie detector test to be given to her son. The appellant did not sign any waiver. The record is silent as to whether he refused to do so or was not asked. Following the lie detector test, another interrogation session began during which the appellant confessed to participation in the homicide. During this interrogation session, appellant’s mother was present. At one point, the appellant stated that he didn’t want to say anything more, but continued after his mother told him to finish the statement. The appellant signed the statement.
Under the above circumstances, which involved about a fifteen hour delay prior to the appellant’s confession, the confession was the product of an unnecessary delay between arrest and arraignment and should have been suppressed prior to trial. Rule 130 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure; Commonwealth v. Cullison, 461 Pa. 301, 336 A.2d 296 (1975); Commonwealth v. Barilak, 460 Pa. 449, 333 A.2d 859 (1975); Commonwealth v. Sanders, 458 Pa. 281, 327 A.2d 43 (1974); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 458 Pa. 425, 327 A.2d 618 (1974); Commonwealth v. Cherry, 457 Pa. 201, 321 A.2d 611 (1974); Commonwealth v. Hancock, 455 Pa. 583, 317 A.2d 588 (1974); Commonwealth v. Williams, 455 Pa. 569, 319 A.2d 419 (1974); Commonwealth v. Dixon, 454 Pa. 444, 311 A.2d 613 (1973); Commonwealth v. Wayman, 454 Pa. 79, 309 A.2d 784 (1973); Commonwealth v. Dutton, 453 Pa. 547, 307 A.2d 238 (1973); Commonwealth v. Tingle, 451 Pa. 241, 301 A.2d 701 (1973); Commonwealth v. Futch, 447 Pa. 389, 290 A.2d 417 (1972); see Geiger Appeal, 454 Pa. 51, 309 A.2d 559 *569(1973); Commonwealth v. Peters, 453 Pa. 615, 306 A.2d 901 (1903).
Even though the confession should have been suppressed prior to trial and thus should not have been introduced into evidence, the majority opinion holds that reversal is not required because the trial judge, sitting without a jury, specifically stated that he disregarded the prejudicial evidence — the appellant’s confession — and determined guilt solely on the basis of the other evidence in the case. The majority concludes, therefore, that the issue concerning the admissibility of the appellant’s confession is moot. I cannot agree.
I have no doubt that the trial judge honestly expressed his opinion in stating that the verdict was not influenced by the prejudicial confession. I cannot, however, accept that opinion, honest though it may be, as determinative of the issue. Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908, 84 S.Ct. 1774 (1964), considered whether a conviction should be allowed to stand on the assumption that a confession had been erroneously introduced into evidence but disregarded by a jury in determining guilt. Jackson said that allowing the conviction to stand was:
“. . . unacceptable . . . [t]he fact of a defendant’s confession is solidly implanted in the jury’s mind for it has not only heard the confession, but it has been instructed to consider and judge its voluntariness and is in a position to assess whether it is true or false. If it finds the confession involuntary, does the jury- — indeed, can it — then disregard the confession in accordance with its instructions? If there are lingering doubts about the sufficiency of the other evidence, does the jury unconsciously lay them to rest by resort to the confession? Will uncertainty about the sufficiency of the other evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt actually result in acquittal *570when the jury knows the defendant has given a truthful [though inadmissible] confession?
It is difficult, if not impossible, to prove that a confession which a jury has found to be involuntary has nevertheless influenced the verdict . . . ”
Id. at 388, 84 S.Ct. at 1786,12 L.Ed.3d at 922.
(emphasis added)
The view expressed in Jackson is a realistic recognition that the persuasive factors influencing the decision maker are subtle and incapable of detection. An erroneously admitted confession presents a grave danger that the decision maker unknowingly has not disregarded the confession.
Jackson was of course, addressing itself to whether a jury may have been influenced by evidence which it may have disregarded. This case is different in that a judge alone sat as the trier of fact. I recognize that in non-jury trials the erroneous introduction of evidence does not always affect the validity of the verdict, but the prejudicial effect of a confession is great, and a judge may, as Jackson pointed out about a jury, “unconsciously” lay to rest lingering doubts about the sufficiency of the other evidence by resort to the confession.
Addressing the related question of the influence evidence of guilt might have on a judge’s ability to rule impartially on the issue of voluntariness of an incriminating statement, the court in United States ex rel. Spears v. Rundle, 268 F.Supp. 691 (E.D.Pa.1967), aff’d. 405 F. 2d 1037 (3d Cir. 1969) (per curiam), concluded that “ [i]t is impossible to objectively and reliably determine that the confession was voluntary after considering [the defendant’s] guilt.” Id. at 696. The Spears court reasoned that Jackson v. Denno required a separate hearing *571on the voluntariness issue where the fact finder is a judge rather than a jury, saying,
“The function of a judge trying a case without a jury is twofold: [the j udge] is a finder of fact, as well as an arbiter of the law. The responsibility is burdensome. But the task becomes too great when we require a judge who has heard evidence of guilt, to objectively and coldly assess a distinct issue as to the voluntariness of the confession. Objectivity cannot be guaranteed, and reliability must be questioned. Jackson properly construed, prohibits the finder of fact from passing on the voluntariness of a confession since its decision as to voluntariness could be colored by evidence as to guilt.” (Emphasis added.) Id. at 695.
See also Commonwealth v. Patterson, 432 Pa. 76, 247 A.2d 218 (1968) (Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Mr. Justice O’Brien quoting the above), and Levin and Cohen, The Exclusionary Rules in Nonjury Criminal Cases, 119 U.Pa.L.Pev. 905 (May 1971). The reasoning of Spears is, of course, equally applicable to the situation presented by the instant appeal.
It has been recognized in other situations that certain erroneously admitted evidence may present as much potential for unfairness whether a judge or a jury sits as the trier of fact. Commonwealth v. Rivers, 218 Pa.Super. 184, 279 A.2d 766 (1971), reversed a conviction saying that the trial testimony about the defendant’s prior crimes and a pending murder charge was so prejudicial that the trial judge (sitting as trier of facts) “even though he was an able and experienced trial judge, could have come to no other conclusion than that the appellant had a predilection for crime.” Id. at 187, 279 A.2d at 768. In Commonwealth v. Lockart, 227 Pa.Super. 503, 322 A.2d 707 (1974), the Superior Court noted its opinion that the improper introduction of photographic evi*572dence indicating a prior criminal record which, would be reversable error in a jury trial would likewise be revers-able error in a non-jury trial. See Commonwealth v. Allen, 448 Pa. 177, 292 A.2d 373 (1972).
The opinion of Judge Spaulding dissenting in Commonwealth v. Goodman, 221 Pa.Super. 73, 79, 289 A.2d 186, 189 (1972), pointed out that “we should not rely upon the fiction of a judicial blind side.” He continued saying:
“I do not conclude that there should be a wholesale application of the rules of evidence as they apply to jury trials to judges sitting as the fact-finder. To do so would deprecate a judge’s long years of study and experience, and his dedication to the ends of justice and fairness. However, to assume qualities of restraint and logic in a judge which we do not assume in a layman does not mean that we should overlook that judges are subject to human nature, or that we should not continuously seek to assure fairness in cases where judges act as the fact-finder.”
Id. at 80, 289 A.2d at 189. See also Commonwealth v. Goodman, 454 Pa. 358, 311 A.2d 652 (1973).
The trial judge was exposed to highly prejudicial evidence — a confession — which was improperly admitted at trial. In light of this exposure, I conclude that the trial judge, despite sincere effort to put such evidence out of mind, cannot be said to have done so. The confession is inadmissible because it was secured in violation of Rule 130 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure and the cases of this Court interpreting that Rule. The appellant is entitled to a determination of guilt or innocence by a fact-finder insulated from, and unaffected by, the inadmissible confession.
The majority also holds that appellant cannot raise the issue before this Court because it was not raised in post-verdict motions. The opinion denying post-verdict motions specifically stated that the admissibility of appel*573lant’s statements was properly determined in the pretrial suppression hearing. Although the record does not contain a transcript of the hearing on post-verdict motions, the trial court’s opinion indicates that the issue was raised and considered.
Judgment of sentence should be reversed and a new trial granted. I therefore dissent.
ROBERTS, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.