does this person who is unrelated to the defendant but yet buys a Father's Day present and the defendant shows up at her house and proposes to his wife to get engaged on a Wednesday night. [Detective] Dietrich said it wasn’t a Wednesday night. [June 18th] was a Tuesday night. [Detective Dietrich] didn’t happen to remember that. He knew that because it's documented in the homicide report. Maybe the defendant did propose to his wife on Wednesday because we know he was nowhere to be found in Reading after June 18, 1996. Maybe she was right, it was Wednesday. N.T., at 511-12. 10 . Apparently, Ms. Jackson, who resides in New York, was suffering from cancer. 11 . The Commonwealth argues that the statements were proper under Commonwealth v. Yarris, 519 Pa. 571, 597, 549 A.2d 513, 526 (1988) (<HOLDING>). As Johnson did not testify and did produce
holding the prosecutors statements were not an inappropriate comment on the defendants failure to testify but rather a comment on the defendants failure to present convincing evidence to support his defense holding that the prosecutors comments pertaining to the defendants failure to present a certain alibi witness was not improper for it merely challenged the defendants failure to produce a witness who would have corroborated the defendants testimony holding that the failure to interview and present alibi witnesses who would have supported the defendants version of events was prejudicial holding that death of potential alibi witness did not cause actual prejudice because defendant failed to relate the substance of the testimony of the missing witness in sufficient detail and to show witness testimony not available from other sources holding that the prosecutors comment regarding the defendants failure to call a potential witness did not shift the burden of proof because it did not implicate the defendants fifth amendment right not to testify