already a convicted murderer. Recognizing the highly prejudicial impact of presenting such evidence to a jury prior to its determination of his guilt, Ap pellant contends that the only way to ensure his constitutional right to an impartial penalty jury was to impanel separate juries for the guilt and penalty phases of trial. According to Appellant, this would allow him to “life qualify” the penalty phase jurors to determine whether they could consider a life sentence after learning of his prior murder conviction, without prejudicing guilt phase jurors. Appellant maintains that, absent a proper life qualification process of the penalty phase jurors, he was denied his constitutional right to an impartial jury. See Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81, 85, 108 S.Ct. 2273, 101 L.Ed.2d 80 (1988) (<HOLDING>); Commonwealth v. Hunsberger, — Pa. -, 58 A.3d
holding the sixth amendment right to a jury trial applies to the states through the fourteenth amendment holding that the sixth amendments guarantee of a trial by jury requires the jury to base its verdict only on the evidence presented at trial holding that the sixth amendments guarantee of the assistance of counsel is made obligatory upon the states by the fourteenth amendment holding that the sixth amendments guarantee of a trial by jury requiresthe jury to base its verdict only on the evidence presented at trial holding that it is wellsettled that the sixth and fourteenth amendments of the united states constitution guarantee a defendant on trial for his life the right to an impartial jury