Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8703 (2026)

  Arraignment.

✓ current as of May 2026
Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 8703.  Arraignment.

(a)  General rule.--The arraignment of the defendant may be satisfied, in the discretion of the court, either by the physical appearance of the defendant before the court or by two-way electronic audio-video communication. The audio-video communication must operate so that the defendant and the judge can see each other simultaneously and converse with each other. If the defendant has counsel, the defendant shall be allowed to communicate fully and confidentially with his attorney during the proceeding. A judge may order the defendant to physically appear in court for the arraignment.

(b)  Court rules.--Except for the provisions of this section, arraignments shall be in the form and in the manner as provided by court rule.

(June 11, 1998, P.L.463, No.67, eff. 60 days)

 

1998 Amendment.  Act 67 added section 8703.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2002–2002 · leading case: People v. Lindsey, 772 N.E.2d 1268 (Ill. 2002).
People v. Lindsey, 772 N.E.2d 1268 (Ill. 2002). · cites it 2× “" 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 8703 (2001). The Alabama Code of Criminal Procedure provides in part: "The audio-video communication shall enable the judge or magistrate to see and converse simultaneously with the defendant or other person and operate so that the defendant and his or her…”
People v. Lindsey (Ill. 2002). “” 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. §8703 (2001). The Alabama Code of Criminal Procedure provides in part: “The audio-video communication shall enable the judge or magistrate to see and converse simultaneously with the defendant or other person and operate so that the defendant and his or her…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.