dissenting.
The Motion for Limited Remand of Proceedings raises an issue of judicial prejudice that is unparalleled in this state. While I agree with my colleagues that we should not allow defendants an open-ended fishing expedition, nevertheless the serious nature of the charges should, in my opinion, be examined now rather than later, in fairness to the judge, the state, the defendant, this Court, and the administration of justice in this state.
The allegations of the defendant are based almost exclusively on hearsay contained in news articles. It is at least arguable, that some of the allegations, if true, might have had an impact on various discretionary rulings during the trial. The review of these evidentiary rulings should, in my opinion, be conducted after, and not before, there is a determination whether the defendant’s allegations have any merit.
For example, Exhibit 13 that is attached to the Motion for Limited Remand of Proceedings contains a copy of a purported February 20, 2000 article that appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer newspaper under the by-line of Sandy Bauers. It states in part:
“Candidate Lee credits not only the Ca-pano case but also the verdict for his popularity. The public was convinced of the defendant’s guilt, and had Capano been acquitted, Lee would have been seen, he believes, as ‘Just another judge who failed to see that the system did its job.’ ” (emphasis added)
Statements in newspaper articles are hearsay. But if the above writing is an accurate statement of what the trial judge said, it might have considerable significance in the appeal.
I, therefore, believe that there should be a limited remand at this time for the sole purpose of establishing just what was said or done or not said or not done by the trial judge. For example, an inquiry as to the newspaper statements might be:
(1) Did the judge make the alleged statement?
(2) If so, is the statement correctly reported?
(3) If so, what was the context surrounding the statement? and
(4) What did the judge mean by the statement?
I agree that the procedure adopted by the majority is a reasonable response to the motion but, in my opinion, the issues raised by the defendant in his motion should be resolved before the Court reviews the trial judge’s discretionary evi-dentiary rulings, not after.
ORDER
NOW, THEREFORE, this 17th day of March, 2000, based on the Opinion set forth above, IT IS ORDERED by a majority of the Court, as follows:
(1) The Court declines to grant an immediate limited remand and defers its final decision on the motion pending full briefing on the question of whether any aspect of the factual inquiry requested by the motion will ultimately be warranted.
(2) Briefing relating to the subject matter of the motion must be integrated into full briefing on the merits of the appeal and proceed in accordance with the following schedule:
(a) No later than 30 days following the date of this Order, Appellant shall serve and file an opening supplemental brief (not to exceed 25 pages) and appendix, confined to the issues raised in the motion, consistent with this Opinion;
(b) No later than 75 days following service of appellant’s supplemental brief and appendix, the State shall serve and file its answering brief (not to exceed 165 pages) and appendix on all issues, including those raised in appellant’s supplemental brief;
*506(c) No later than 45 days following service of the State’s answering brief and appendix, Appellant shall serve and file a reply brief (not to exceed 80 pages) and reply appendix on all issues;
(3) This briefing schedule may not be substantially extended, even with mutual consent of the parties, except by order of the Court upon a clear and convincing showing of good cause.
(4) Oral argument shall be scheduled by further order of the Court.