Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog

Zak Goldstein 12/5/23 Zak Goldstein 12/5/23

PA Supreme Court: Commonwealth's Suppression of Key Witness's Mental Health Records Requires New Trial

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Conforti, affirming the PCRA court’s decision to vacate the defendant’s convictions for murder, rape, and related charges. The Court affirmed the reversal of the defendant’s death sentence because the defendant was able to show in PCRA proceedings that the Commonwealth hid psychological records for the witness which could have been used to impeach the witness at the time of trial.

The Facts of Conforti

In 1990, Kathleen Harbison and and her friend, Sue Fritz, were drinking at Cousins Restaurant and Bar in Wayne County, Pennsylvania. Harbison was seen in the company of the defendant, Michael Conforti, and James Bellman. Harbison left the bar to warm up her car in the early morning hours while Fritz said goodbye to friends. Fritz left the bar a few minutes later. She found Harbison’s car in the parking lot with the engine running, the driver door locked, the passenger door unlocked, the heater running, the radio on high volume, and Harbison’s purse on the back seat. Harbison was nowhere to be found. Before Fritz came outside, someone saw Bellman in his car, which was parked next to Harbison’s car.

A few days later, Harbison’s body was found in a secluded wooded area of Wayne County. Harbison had been stabbed twelve times, and four of the wounds were lethal. The cause of death was multiple stab wounds. There was evidence that Harbison had been bound by the wrists and ankles by handcuffs and that the acts were committed by more than one person.

The defendant and Bellman were arrested and charged with murder and other offenses related to Harbison’s death. Bellman gave a statement admitting to his involvement while the defendant offered no statement. The two were tried at the same time in the Wayne County Courthouse in two separate trials. Then-Wayne County District Attorney (and future judge) Wayne Hamill prosecuted Bellman, and then-Assistant District Attorney Mark Zimmer prosecuted the defendant. After testimony closed in Bellman’s trial but before closing arguments, Bellman, District Attorney Hamill, and Bellman’s lawyer had a meeting in a conference room in the back of the courtroom. After the meeting, Bellman informed District Attorney Hamill that he would testify for the Commonwealth in the defendant’s then ongoing trial.

Bellman testified that on the night of the murder, he and Harbison left the bar in Wayne County and went to the defendant’s house in Pike County. He claimed the defendant forced Harbison to engage in oral sex after telling Bellman to handcuff her. Harbison was then forced into Bellman’s car and driven to a secluded dirt road in Wayne County. Bellman claimed he and the defendant pulled her from the car and then the defendant repeatedly stabbed her with a knife the defendant brought from his trailer before they left.

Bellman continued, that after the killing, he and the defendant stopped at Ledgedale Bridge where the defendant threw the knife and handcuffs into the water. They then burned the blood-stained clothing and car mats from Bellman’s car in the defendant’s burn barrel and cleaned and vacuumed the defendant’s trailer and Bellman’s car. Bellman identified the recovered knife as the murder weapon.

Bellman claimed he decided to testify due to his sympathy for the victim’s family. He claimed that he did not have a plea agreement with the Commonwealth and would not receive anything for his testimony. The day after Bellman’s testimony, the prosecutor and defense attorney stipulated to the following:

The Commonwealth and Defense have stipulated that after Bellman had informed the District Attorney that he wished to testify at this trial -- that is to say the trial of [defendant] -- the District Attorney told him that if he did so and pled guilty to first degree murder in his own trial, the District Attorney would not seek the death penalty.
Mr. Hamill, the District Attorney, further told James Bellman that if he did not plead guilty, he would receive no consideration for his testimony against [defendant].
At the time Mr. Bellman testified in this trial here yesterday, he had not made up his mind which of these options he wished to take.
Since that time, he has pled guilty to first degree murder and he has been sentenced to life in prison.

The defendant took the stand in his own defense, contradicting Bellman’s testimony, and denying any involvement in the murder. The jury convicted the defendant of murder, and the court sentenced him to death. The trial court denied all post-sentence motions, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the defendant’s conviction and judgement of sentence on direct appeal.

The Defendant’s Post-Conviction Relief Act Petition

The defendant filed a timely pro se petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”). The Office of the Attorney General represented the Commonwealth. Multiple hearings were held between October 2018 and November 2021.

Immediately before the PCRA hearing on November 5, 2021, the Commonwealth, represented by the Office of the Attorney General, provided the defendant’s counsel with two of Bellman’s mental health reports from 1980. The reports were created when Bellman was represented by Hamill while Hamill was in private practice. Hamill requested Bellman be evaluated by mental health experts. The reports, based on these evaluations, showed that Bellman was diagnosed as a sociopath by both evaluating doctors.

At the hearing on the petition, the parties entered a stipulation providing that the Office of the Attorney General was provided the file for Commonwealth v. Conforti which was maintained by the Wayne County District Attorney’s Office. The file had been in the possession of the Office of the Attorney General since that time. Counsel further stipulated that the mental health reports were contained in the Wayne County District Attorney’s file in a folder labeled “Misc. Police Reports,” and counsel for the Commonwealth from the Office of the Attorney General was unaware of its presence prior to its discovery and disclosure.

The PCRA judge granted the defendant’s petition, vacating his conviction and sentence on multiple grounds due to Constitutional violations for failing to disclose material exculpatory evidence that may have affected the outcome of the trial. The PCRA court based its decision in Brady v. Maryland, finding that the Commonwealth committed a Brady violation by failing to disclose the exculpatory mental health reports.

The PCRA Court Opinion

The PCRA court made a number of factual determinations in support of the grant of a new trial. First, it concluded that Bellman was negotiating with the Commonwealth for weeks prior to his testimony and that the negotiations were for Bellman to testify against the defendant in order to strengthen a weak, circumstantial case against the defendant. Accordingly, under Brady v. Maryland, this information should have been disclosed prior to trial because Brady requires that any material showing that a Commonwealth witness was looking for favorable treatment or otherwise was motivated to curry favor with the prosecution be disclosed.

Second, the PCRA court addressed the defendant’s claim that the failure to disclose the mental health records also constituted a Brady violation. The court determined that the Commonwealth had possession of Bellman’s mental health reports since 1980 and that the reports remained in the possession of the Commonwealth since that time. The court found that none of the evidence of Bellman’s mental health issues was disclosed to defense counsel prior to trial.

The court emphasized this determination by explaining, had this information been provided to defendant’s counsel prior to trial, defendant’s attorney could have called the authors to tell the jury what they determined to be Bellman’s mental health issues. The court highlighted excerpts of the report stating Bellman had no empathy for others, was selfish, narcissistic, and felt no guilt.

The PCRA court determined the information contained in the reports would have been devastating to Bellman’s credibility at trial. It highlighted the fact that Bellman was the Commonwealth’s key witness, the defendant maintained his innocence, and the rest of the evidence against the defendant was circumstantial.

The court relied heavily on the Third Circuit’s decision in Dennis v. Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, which held that Brady material does not have to be evidence that would have resulted in an acquittal, but rather must only be evidence that would undermine confidence in the jury verdict.

The PCRA court further rejected the Commonwealth’s position claiming that counsel for the defendant could have obtained Bellman’s mental health information from sources other than the Commonwealth. The court found that Dennis held that a defendant is entitled to presume that prosecutors will disclose information they are required to disclose. The court ultimately found that Hamill knew about the reports and was obligated to turn them over to the defendant prior to trial. The court therefore granted the defendant a new trial. The Commonwealth appealed.

The Supreme Court’s Opinion

The Supreme Court affirmed. First, the Court addressed the mental health reports. It recognized that in Brady, the United States Supreme Court held that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. The Supreme Court subsequently held that the duty to disclose such evidence is applicable even if there has been no request by the accused, and that the duty may encompass impeachment evidence as well as directly exculpatory evidence. Furthermore, the prosecution’s Brady obligation extends to exculpatory evidence in the files of police agencies of the same government bringing the prosecution.

A Brady violation occurs when:

1. The evidence is favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory or because it could be used for impeachment purposes;

2. the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution either willfully or inadvertently; and

3. prejudice ensued, meaning the disclosure of the evidence could have resulted in a different outcome.

First, the Court addressed the Commonwealth’s argument that the defendant waived any claim of a Brady violation by not raising the claim sooner. The Supreme Court agreed with the PCRA court, finding the defendant raised the Brady violation as soon as possible as the defendant did not have the psychiatric reports until they were disclosed in November of 2021. The defendant filed a PCRA petition within one year as required.

The Court continued its analysis by accepting the factual determination that the Commonwealth had the reports in its possession in 1980 and they were located in the case file, yet the Commonwealth failed to disclose them to defendant’s counsel.

The Commonwealth also argued that it did not have to disclose the reports because the reports were not material. The Commonwealth argued there was no reasonable probability that had the reports been disclosed, the result of the defendant’s trial would have been different. The Commonwealth claimed the reports would never have made it to the jury, and even if they had, they did not establish that the defendant did not participate in the murder.

The Commonwealth further argued the reports could not have been used to impeach Bellman’s credibility because only mental health disabilities that impair a witness’s ability to observe, recall, or report events are admissible to impeach credibility.

The defendant responded: “Bellman’s status as a sociopath, including his compulsion to blame others for his actions, his attempts to deceive evaluators, and his inability to feel guilt, made his testimony against defendant unreliable as it impacted his ‘ability to perceive events and to truthfully relate the facts to which he testified at trial.” The defendant further asserted the reports show Bellman to be a sophisticated actor capable of committing the crime on his own and that the reports would have been extremely damaging to Bellman’s testimony.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed with the defendant’s analysis, determining the reports could have been used to impeach Bellman due to his status as a sociopath. The Court explained his compulsion to blame others for his actions, attempts to deceive the evaluators, and his inability to feel guilt made his testimony unreliable. Ultimately the Court determined the reports qualified as impeachment evidence that was favorable to the defendant. They were therefore Brady material that the Commonwealth was required to turn over so defense counsel could present Bellman’s mental health issues to the jury and the jury could evaluate whether those issues impacted his credibility.

Finally, the Court addressed the prejudice component of the Brady violation. The Court agreed with the PCRA court’s determination that Bellman was the Commonwealth’s key witness. It noted that without Bellman’s testimony, the evidence against the defendant was purely circumstantial. Bellman’s testimony directly connected the defendant to the murder and even alleged that it was the defendant’s idea to murder the victim. The Court further pointed out that Bellman’s credibility was crucial to the case because the defendant testified in his own defense, directly contradicting Bellman. The reports regarding Bellman’s mental health status would have called his credibility into question. The Court determined that if those reports were properly disclosed, there is a reasonable probability the result of the trial would have been different.

The Takeaway

This case does not really change the law in Pennsylvania, but it shows that the courts often take Brady violations seriously. The prosecution has a duty to produce exculpatory evidence. If it does not, then the defendant may obtain a new trial, sometimes even decades later. The Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office currently has an open file policy for old homicide cases and will allow a defense attorney to review the prosecutor’s file as well as the detectives’ homicide file. In many cases, there may be exculpatory evidence which was never disclosed to the defense. If the evidence is compelling enough, it may be the basis for filing a new PCRA and getting back into court. This case is an example of that type of evidence.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case? We can help.

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Attorneys

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court, including the exoneration of a client who spent 33 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.

Zak Goldstein 11/17/23 Zak Goldstein 11/17/23

PA Superior Court: Commonwealth Must Provide Bill of Particulars and Give Alleged Mechanism of Death in Homicide Case

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. McKnight, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the defendant’s motion for a bill of particulars identifying the mechanism by which the Commonwealth alleged the defendant killed the decedent in a homicide/poisoning case. This is an interesting case because requests for bills of particulars are fairly rare in modern litigation, and here, the trial court ordered the Commonwealth to essentially specify its theory of criminal liability for the defendant in advance of trial.

The Facts of McKnight

The Commonwealth filed a Bill of Information charging the defendant with first-degree murder and attempted murder. The Commonwealth alleged that the defendant caused the death of a three-month-old infant by poisoning the infant with fentanyl. The Commonwealth also alleged that the defendant attempted to murder a 16-month-old toddler with fentanyl. The Commonwealth also filed notice of its intent to seek the death penalty. The defense responded with a motion for a bill of particulars asking the Commonwealth to identify how the drugs in question were allegedly administered to the children. The defense argued that without knowing what the Commonwealth actually alleged the defendant did, they would be unable to effectively prepare for trial and to defend against the specific allegations.

The Commonwealth filed a response in which it refused to provide a bill of particulars. The Commonwealth argued that the request was an improper attempt to obtain the Commonwealth’s evidence and theory of the case in advance. The defense filed a motion asking the trial court to direct the Commonwealth to respond. The trial court granted the defense motion and ordered the Commonwealth to respond. It also ruled that should the Commonwealth fail to respond, the trial court could preclude the Commonwealth from seeking the death penalty at trial.

The Commonwealth filed a notice of appeal and certified that the order terminated or substantially handicapped its prosecution of the defendant pursuant to Rule 311(d) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Commonwealth argued on appeal that it should not have to provide the requested information to the defense in advance.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court’s Decision

The Pennsylvania Superior court affirmed the trial court’s order. First, the Superior Court ruled that the appeal was properly filed even though it was an interlocutory appeal. In general, appeals may not be filed until a case is over. The Commonwealth, however, may file an interlocutory or pre-trial appeal where a trial court’s order would terminate or substantially handicap the prosecution. The Commonwealth must certify in good faith that the order would have that effect. Here, it was a little bit of a stretch that the order would really hurt the Commonwealth’s case, but the Superior Court allowed the appeal. It concluded that the trial court would potentially bar the Commonwealth from seeking the death penalty, and that remedy would have a substantial effect on the prosecution of the case.

Although the Superior Court allowed the appeal, it did rule that the trial court properly ordered the Commonwealth to respond. The Superior Court agreed with the trial court that the defendant’s request was an attempt to clarify the pleadings and prepare an adequate defense. It was therefore not an improper request, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the Commonwealth to provide more information. The Court explained that the defense could differ significantly if the Commonwealth alleged a specific method of poisoning the children versus contending that she poisoned the children in a manner that could not be definitively determined. The Court also noted that the trial court had broad discretion to rule on a motion for a bill of particulars. The Court also ruled that the Commonwealth waived its challenge to the potential sanction of being barred from seeking the death penalty for failing to raise this claim in the trial court. Therefore, the Court accepted the appeal on the merits, but it affirmed the trial court’s ruling and directed the Commonwealth to provide more information as to how it believed that the defendant committed the homicide and attempted murder.

The Takeaway

The decision in Commonwealth v. McKnight shows the importance of pre-trial litigation and filing strategic pre-trial motions. The Commonwealth will now have to disclose how it believes the defendant committed the crimes charged, and it will not necessary be able to obtain a conviction if it ends up proving at trial that the crimes were committed in some other way. The defense will gain valuable information that will help it prepare for trial, and the defense is much less likely to be ambushed with some novel theory at the last minute. The prosecution often gets away with a lot of last minute changes and disclosures, and here, the ruling on this motion prevents them from doing that. It is critical in every case to think about how the filing of pre-trial motions may benefit the defendant at trial or help to even avoid a trial.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal conviction?

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

Zak Goldstein 9/8/23 Zak Goldstein 9/8/23

Federal Habeas: Third Circuit Finds Trial Counsel Ineffective for Failing to Impeach Key Prosecution Witness or Object When Judge Instructed Witness to Testify Favorably for Commonwealth

Criminal Defense Attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has decided the case of Rogers v. Superintendent Greene SCI, finding that the district court should have found the defendant’s trial attorney provided the ineffective assistance of counsel when he failed to impeach the Commonwealth’s main witness with prior inconsistent statements or object when the trial judge threatened to have the witness charged with perjury if the witness did not testify favorably for the Commonwealth. This is an important decision; federal habeas petitions can be very difficult to win. Fortunately, the Third Circuit recognized that defense attorneys must pay attention during trial and advocate strategically for their clients. They may not remain silent in the face of obvious misconduct or fail to use critical impeachment evidence against the Commonwealth’s star witness.

The Facts of Rogers

In Rogers, the defendant had been convicted of third-degree murder. The evidence introduced at trial suggested that a man named Hayes saw Rogers standing on a corner. Hayes approached Rogers, the men had words, and they both pulled out guns. They began shooting at each other. A third man across the street started shooting, as well. Hayes drove away. Rogers, Hayes, and the third man survived, but Rogers’s friend Green was killed by a stray bullet from Rogers’s gun.

Multiple witnesses told the police that Hayes fire first and Rogers defended himself. A final witness, Singleton, initially refused to make a statement. He later told the police that Hayes never fired a gun. Three years later, after Hayes was arrested and charged in the shooting, Singleton changed his story and said that Hayes had shot at Rogers. Singleton continued to maintain, however, that Rogers fired first and that Hayes acted in self-defense.

The Commonwealth charged both Hayes and Rogers with first-degree murder, but it tried them separately. Hayes’s trial was first. Singleton and a witness named Summers both testified. Singleton told his recent, new story that Hayes shot at Rogers but only in self-defense. Summers changed her story. She had told the police that Hayes shot first, but at trial, she said she didn’t see who fired first. The jury acquitted Hayes of all charges.

Rogers’s trial took place a week later. Summers again testified that she did not see who fired first. For the first time ever, Singleton told the jury that Rogers acted in self-defense and Hayes fired first. Later in the day, the trial judge excused the jury and then admonished Singleton for the inconsistent testimony. The judge told Singleton that he had committed perjury and that if Singleton continued to play games, he would receive the maximum consecutive sentence for perjury. The judge told Singleton to “do some long hard thinking” before resuming his testimony because if he said Hayes shot first again, it would be perjury. Rogers’s attorney inexplicably failed to object.

Trial resumed the next day. This time, Singleton testified that his claim that Hayes fired first was wrong and actually Rogers had fired first. Singleton said he made a mistake because he was nervous. Rogers’s attorney did not object or cross-examine Singleton on the change in testimony. The jury found Rogers guilty of third-degree murder, and the judge sentenced him to 16 - 32 years’ incarceration.

The Appeals

Rogers appealed. The Superior Court affirmed. He then filed a Post-Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) petition. In the petition, he argued that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel when trial counsel failed to object when the judge threatened Singleton and told him how to testify and that his trial counsel should have cross-examined Singleton on the change in testimony. The PCRA court denied the petition. The Superior Court eventually affirmed. Rogers filed a similar petition in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The federal district judge denied the habeas petition. Rogers appealed to the Third Circuit.

The Third Circuit reversed. It recognized that when a state prisoner’s attorney fails to provide the effective assistance of counsel, a federal court has the power to grant relief. The power to grant relief is limited, however. A federal court must presume that the state courts’ factual findings were correct and defer to the state court’s rulings on claims adjudicated on the merits unless they were 1) were “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court,” or 2) were “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” This standard is difficult to meet.

The Third Circuit’s Ruling

Here, the Court found that Rogers met that standard. Trial counsel had testified at an evidentiary hearing that his decision was strategic; he did not see any basis for objecting to to the judge’s threats, and he thought that the jury would not find Singleton credible. He therefore decided to rely on Summers’s testimony. The lower courts accepted this explanation, but the Third Circuit rejected it. It found that Pennsylvania appellate courts have warned against such judicial conduct for decades and granted new trials in cases where judges behaved in this manner. The Court also disapproved of the fact that trial counsel did not appear to have watched the first trial or reviewed the testimony from that trial. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has prohibited trial judges from questioning witnesses in a manner that suggests the judge has an opinion on the testimony, and so trial counsel should have objected. Counsel also should have cross-examined Singleton on the change in the story in order to highlight the inconsistencies for the jury. Singleton was the only real witness against Rogers, so discrediting Singleton could have resulted in a different verdict. As Singleton’s testimony was the most important, Rogers suffered prejudice in that he may have been acquitted or received a new trial on appeal had trial counsel properly objected and impeached Singleton.

Therefore, the Third Circuit vacated the conviction and granted Rogers a new trial. Ultimately, defense attorneys are not expected to be perfect. Trials happen quickly, and attorneys have to make quick decisions on how to try to fight a case. Sometimes defendants lose trials even when the defense attorney did a good job. Or the defense attorney may have had a good reason for making a decision regarding objections or a line of cross-examination but not obtained the hoped for result. But attorneys may not sit silent while judges threaten witnesses or express opinions on the defendant’s guilt or innocence, and they must use strong exculpatory evidence properly. They cannot just do nothing and hope for the best when effective potential defenses are available. This case recognizes that fact, and so Rogers will receive a new trial.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.

Zak Goldstein 7/20/23 Zak Goldstein 7/20/23

PA Superior Court: Defendant Must Show Link Between Case and Trial Judge's Subsequent Arrest in Order to Win New Evidence PCRA

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein,

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Myers, holding that the trial court properly denied the defendant’s PCRA petition because the defendant failed to show that unrelated corruption by the trial judge tainted the conviction in his case. Myers shows the importance of actually linking subsequent misconduct by police and court officials to the defendant’s individual case. Where the defendant can show only that the police or judge did something wrong that was unrelated to the case, the defendant is unlikely to prevail in PCRA litigation.

The Facts of Myers

Myers pleaded guilty to third-degree murder. Pursuant to a negotiated guilty plea, he received a sentence of 20 – 40 years’ incarceration. His co-defendant also pleaded guilty and received a shorter sentence. Two or three years later, the trial judge resigned from the bench because he had been caught stealing drugs from an evidence room in the courthouse. The judge pleaded guilty to related crimes, and the Supreme Court permanently disbarred him.

About seven years later, Myers filed a Post-Conviction Relief Act Petition arguing that he should receive a new trial as a result of the judge’s corruption. Myers invoked the newly discovered evidence exception. Ordinarily, a PCRA petition must be filed within a year of a defendant’s sentence becoming final. There is an exception, however, for when a defendant uncovers new evidence which could not have been discovered prior to trial through the exercise of due diligence and that evidence calls the validity of the conviction in to doubt. In that case, the statute allows the defendant a new one year window in which to file a PCRA petition and seek a new trial based on the new evidence.

Here, the judge resigned from the bench in 2012 and was convicted in 2015. The defendant, however, did not file his PCRA petition until 2022. He claimed that he did not learn of the judge’s corruption until shortly before he filed his petition because he did not have access to many resources while in prison.

The trial court denied the petition. It found that 1) the judge’s conviction had been a matter of public record since at least 2015, so the defendant should have filed a petition within the 60 day deadline for new evidence that applied at the time, 2) the defendant admitted in his petition that he found out about the conviction in March 2021 but did not file the petition within the old 60 day deadline, and 3) the defendant failed to link the judge’s conviction to his own case or show how the judge’s drug theft and issues affected his ability to accept the negotiated guilty plea. The defendant appealed.

The Superior Court’s Decision

The Superior Court affirmed the denial of the PCRA petition. The Court rejected the trial court’s first two reasons but accepted the third. Specifically, the defendant was not required to file anything within 60 days of the conviction becoming public because the public records presumption no longer applies. Recognizing that inmates do not necessarily have access to the news or legal databases, the Supreme Court eliminated the presumption that inmates are aware of public records like court documents in a case called Commonwealth v. Small in 2020. Therefore, the defendant was not expected to know about the judge’s conviction or resignation.

Second, a PCRA based on newly discovered evidence must be filed within a year based on a 2018 amendment that extended the deadline from 60 days to one year. As the trial court denied the petition for not having been filed within 60 days, the Superior Court found that the trial court erred for that reason, as well. The court simply failed to recognize the amendment to the law.

The Superior Court affirmed on the third reason, however. The Court found that the defendant failed to show that anything about the judge’s illegal behavior tainted his own case. The defendant had accepted a negotiated guilty plea, meaning he agreed to plead guilty and that he and the Commonwealth would recommend the same sentence to the judge. The judge accepted that negotiated plea. Thus, even if the judge had significant corruption or personal issues, there was nothing about those issues that would have affected the guilty plea or the defendant’s decision to plead guilty. In other words, the defendant was unable to show that anything about the judge’s behavior actually affected the case.

Finally, although the Court did not apply the old public records presumption, it did express skepticism that the defendant would not have heard about the judge’s behavior for so long. Although the presumption no longer applies, a defendant must be able to plead and prove that they acted with due diligence and could not reasonably have learned of the new evidence sooner. Here, the defendant failed to do so. Therefore, the Court affirmed the denial of the petition.

The Impact of Myers

The Court’s ruling shows the importance of linking a judge or police officer’s misconduct to the defendant’s specific case. In many cases, detectives or police officers get arrested long after a defendant has been found guilty and sentenced. In those cases, the arrest is often not the officer’s first incident of misconduct, and the Commonwealth and/or police may have had information in their files as to other acts of misconduct that should have been disclosed prior to trial. In that case, it may be possible to invoke the newly discovered evidence exception and allege a Brady violation. In other cases, there may not have been anything that the Commonwealth should have disclosed at the time, but the misconduct may have been so similar to something that happened in the defendant’s case that it calls the legitimacy of the defendant’s conviction into question. For example, if a witness claimed that the police coerced them into giving a statement and the officer involved is later disciplined for doing something similar, it may be possible to argue that the behavior is so similar that it should allow for a new trial under the newly discovered evidence exception.

Ultimately, the mere fact of a subsequent arrest or disciplinary action against someone involved in the case does not automatically result in a new trial. When a detective, judge, or prosecutor gets arrested after someone has been convicted, it is critical to understand when the exception applies and when it does not. It is also important to re-investigate the case thoroughly in order to establish any possible links between the misconduct and the defendant’s case.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein — Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.