Dissenting Opinion by
Me. Justice Roberts:The majority today holds, inter alia, that appellant is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on her allegations that certain “extraordinary circumstances” excuse her prior failure to challenge the admission into evidence of her allegedly coerced incriminating statements. Because this conclusion disregards the clear import of Section 4(b) (2) of the Post Conviction Hearing Act,1 I must dissent from that portion of its decision.
Appellant’s petition alleges in considerable detail that her incriminating statements were coerced by threats, various personal indignities and physical violence inflicted upon her by the police. Although the majority does not deny that the proof of these allegations would compel the conclusion that the statements were unconstitutionally obtained, it holds that her failure to object to their admission at trial and to raise the issue of their involuntariness in her previous direct appeal to this Court constitutes a “waiver” under Section 4 of the Post Conviction Hearing Act.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act, however, provides expressly that there can be no waiver unless “petitioner is unable to prove the existence of extraordinary cir*89eumstances to justify Ms failure to raise the issue.” This “unable to prove . . .” component of the statutory definition of “waiver” necessarily implies that a petitioner be afforded an adequate opportunity to prove extraordinary circumstances.
In the instant case appellant duly alleged extraordinary circumstances.2 Specifically, she claims that she did not disclose the police coercion to her trial counsel because of a compulsion and duress exerted upon her by her brother-in-law, Morris Passon. The majority nevertheless deems an evidentiary hearing unnecessary, by finding her allegations concerning Morris Passon “factually unsupportable” and by concluding, alternatively, that those allegations, even if proven, would fall short of demonstrating “extraordinary circumstances” with the meaning of Section 4 of the Post Conviction Hearing Act. I cannot agree with either reason.
In holding appellant’s allegations to be factually unsupportable as a matter of law, the majority notes that appellant waited ten years to advance them, that she was represented by several able attorneys during this period, and that both the prosecutor and trial judge are now dead.3 I agree that appellant’s present claims are quite unusual and that the staleness of their assertion may reflect negatively upon their credibilty. *90However, I do not think it possible to conclude a priori that she could not, if given the chance, possibly convince the trier of fact of their truthfulness. That an allegation is bizarre is not sufficient reason to withhold the opportunity for its proof. Nor can I perceive any legal significance in the fact that the prosecutor and trial judge are now deceased. Their deaths do not make appellant’s allegations less credible, and I know of no statutory or common law “dead man’s rule” to the effect that one may be barred from collateral relief if witnesses possibly valuable to the Commonwealth’s case are dead or otherwise unavailable.
Equally unacceptable is the majority’s alternative determination that appellant’s allegations even if proved would not constitute extraordinary circumstances excusing waiver. I fail to see how the majority can claim to anticipate the exact nature, extent and quality of proof which appellant would be able to muster if she were given an evidentiary hearing. If, for example, it were demonstrated that appellant’s will at the time of her trial was overborne by the influence of Passon and that Passon desired that appellant not raise the facts concerning the alleged involuntariness of her Statements to the police, such would seem ample excuse for her prior failure to raise the issue of involuntariness.
I offer no assumption as to the probable truthfulness of appellant’s belated claims, and I can certainly sympathize with the majority’s scepticism regarding them. Nevertheless, under Section 4 of the Post Conviction Hearing Act, appellant deserves the chance to attempt to prove them.
Act of January 25, 1966, P. L. (1965) 1580, §4, 19 P.S. §1180-4 0>) (2).
And if proof of the aUeged facts would entitle a petitioner to relief, an evidentiary hearing is required. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Walters, 431 Pa. 74, 76 n. 1, 244 A. 2d 757, 759 n. 1 (1968) ; Commonwealth v. Williams, 428 Pa. 402, 239 A. 2d 311 (1968).
The majority opinion also notes that the denial of appellant’s federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In re Kravitz, 358 F. 2d 734 (3d Cir. 1966). That decision has no bearing on the present appeal. The Third Circuit affirmed the denial of the habeas petition on the sole ground that appellant had failed to exhaust her state remedies.