dissenting.
The majority concludes that the two lawyers who represented the appellant in his 1964 trial for murder were ineffective in failing to object to the introduction of the alleged hearsay statement of a co-defendant which implicated appellant; a new trial is therefore awarded. A review of the record convinces me that acquiescence in the introduction of the statement was a reasonable way to form a basis to appeal to the mercy dispensing powers of the jury. I am also satisfied that even if the failure to try to exclude the damaging statement amounted to ineffectiveness, it was beyond a reasonable doubt harmless error. I therefore respectfully dissent.
In the case at bar, the Commonwealth introduced at trial compelling physical evidence linking appellant with the robbery-murder. Additionally, three witnesses placed appellant at the scene of the crime and two witnesses identified him as the individual who fired the fatal shot at point blank range. Finally, the prosecution introduced the defendant’s own confession given to the police shortly after his apprehension. It is against this background of overwhelming evidence that *330the non-objection of trial counsel to the introduction of the co-defendant’s statement — while no doubt an instance of prosecutorial “overkill” — must be viewed. That statement, while implicating the defendant, also placed before the jury facts suggesting that the shooting was accidental.1 While such facts would not constitute a valid defense to felony-murder, it is likely that they could appeal to the mercy dispensing powers of the jury.2 We have previously acknowledged that where evidence of guilt is strong, it may be reasonable to concede certain facts in the interest of possibly obtaining a verdict on a less serious degree of the offense:
“Once again irrespective of the voluntariness of the confession, it must be noted that no objection was made at trial to the introduction of the confession and in view of counsel’s attempt to avoid the imposition of the death penalty, his failure to object, even assuming that he had concluded that the confession was involuntary, was a tactic within the permissible range of prudent representation of his client’s interests.” Commonwealth v. Ganss, 400 Pa. 602, 605-06, 271 A.2d 224, 226 (1970).
See also Commonwealth v. Rice, 477 Pa. 221, 383 A.2d 903 (1978) (plurality opinion) — (defendant’s reiteration of confession was reasonable where intent was to deny particular elements of the crime); Commonwealth v. Skurkis, 465 Pa. 257, 348 A.2d 894 (1975) — (degree of guilt hearing waived where evidence might establish murder of the first degree); Commonwealth v. Fields, 463 Pa. 244, 344 A.2d 814 (1975)— *331(recommendation of guilty plea with certification that crime rose no higher than murder of the second degree reasonable where evidence indicated murder of the first degree); Commonwealth v. Goosby, 461 Pa. 229, 336 A.2d 260 (1975)— (held effective strategy where confession admitted without objection in order to establish elements of defense); Commonwealth v. Zapata, 455 Pa. 205, 314 A.2d 299 (1974) — (reasonable trial strategy may involve eliciting damaging testimony on direct examination so as to reduce the impact of its use on cross-examination); Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 450 Pa. 273, 299 A.2d 608 (1973) — (reasonable strategy to forego charge on particular offense so as to limit options of the jury); Commonwealth v. McGrogan, 449 Pa. 584, 297 A.2d 456 (1972) — (same).
Even were the majority correct, however, in finding trial counsel to have been constitutionally ineffective, I continue to be satisfied, as was the unanimous Court in 1971, that the case “against appellant was so overwhelming that even if there had been a violation of appellant’s constitutional rights, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Witherspoon, 442 Pa. 597, 600, 277 A.2d 827, 829 (1971) (affirming the present appellant’s conviction on direct appeal). The introduction of the co-defendant’s statement did no more than reiterate the admission of the defendant and inject the possibly helpful theory of accident. See n.2, supra. As was noted in Commonwealth v. Badger, 482 Pa.-, 393 A.2d 642 (1978) (dissenting opinion of Pomeroy, J.):
“To hold that any ineffectiveness of counsel, no matter how trivial the fault, is per se ground for a new trial places an unjustified burden on the judicial system, one not required by the demands of due process of law in the trial of criminal cases.” 482 Pa. at-, 393 A.2d at 649.
. It is important to note that a defendant’s own admission of guilt is the most damaging sort of evidence. Thus, while it is doubtful that corroborative statements of a co-defendant will contribute to the impression of guilt wrought in the juror’s mind by the defendant’s. admission, it is entirely plausible that the co-defendant’s version of the episode could add credibility to the defendant’s otherwise self-serving claim that the shooting was accidental. Such a reasonable basis would be sufficient to render counsel’s conduct effective. Commonwealth ex rel. Washington v. Maroney, 427 Pa. 559, 235 A.2d 349 (1967).
. Had the jury returned a verdict of murder of the second degree, appellant would not have been subject to the possibility of a sentence of death. See the Act of June 24, 1939, P.L. 872, § 701, as amended, 18 P.S. § 4701, which was in effect at the time of appellant’s trial.