In sustaining the defendant's vagueness challenge, the Supreme Court rejected the State's contention that since the statute was "civil" in character, it did not have to meet the due process standard of certainty required of criminal statutes. The Court's language is susceptible of varying interpretations which, in turn, give rise to possibilities for novel applications of the void-for-vagueness doctrine.
Constitutional Law: Supreme Court Holds Pennsylvania Statute Imposing Costs on an Acquitted Defendant Void for Vagueness,
1966 Duke Law Journal
Available at: https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol15/iss3/7