Response in Opposition to the Commonwealth's Motion to Vacate

More documents

Recommendations

Info

that Mr. Draper told the prosecuting authorities that the murder was motivated by a homosexual"relationship," not a robbery. Petitioner's Memorandum, at 6 (quoting Draper 119/12 Declaration).Mr. Williams further proffered that, in his declarations, Mr. Draper had attested that the detectivesthreatened to prosecute him in the unsolved Donna Friedman homicide if he did not mold hisaccount to the Commonwealth's theory. Id. at 8 (quoting Declaration of Marc Draper (3/1112)). Mr.Williams further proffered that the prosecution failed to disclose additional information in itspossession about the sexual activities of the decedent with teenage boys. Id. at 9. Given thesefailures to disclose, Mr. Williams asserted that he had made aprimajacie showing of timelinessunder Bennett. rd. at 10-11.Judge Sarmina held oral argument on Mr. Williams' application for stay of execution,including the timeliness issues, on September 10, 2012. The defense argued that the allegations ofthe Petition and the new disclosures from Mr. Draper themselves established aprimajacie showingunder Bennett. See,~, NT 9/10/12 at 71. Judge Sarmina demanded a more specific proffer,stating:[Jurisdiction] is one of the things that you have to establish, absolutely that, and theburden is on you. There is no assumption there is jurisdiction ....• • •[There must also be] a strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits. Astrong showing, that means what you submit of likelihood of success on the meritsand it doesn't say we're gonna find that out after the evidentiary hearing. This is sothat you even get the evidentiary hearing.rd. at 86-87. Judge Sarmina ordered the defense to make any additional submission by September13. rd. at 101-02.On September 13, 2012, the defense proffered an additional Affidavit from Mr. Draper, inwhich he swore that he told both the investigating officers and Ms. Foulkes that the case was not10
about a robbery, but rather "about Mr. Norwood having sex with Terry," and that Mr. Williams"snapped" at the time of the offense. Affidavit of Marc Draper, 9111/12, ~ 8. Mr. Draper furtherswore that he would not have talked to anyone working on behalf of Mr. Williams prior to January2012, when he signed his fust declaration. rd., ~ 9. Mr. Draper then swore to each of hisdeclarations and they were notarized.In a Supplemental Notice of Filing, also filed on September 13, the defense submitted thatMr. Draper's affidavits made aprimafacie showing of timeliness:First, under subsection (b)(1 )(i), the affidavit( s) establish "interference bygovernment officials" (M., inter alia, 9/11112 affidavit at paragraph 8-"they did notwant me to say the case involved a relationship. They wanted me to say it was onlya robbery. Ms. Foulkes made it clear with me that I had to stick to the story that thiscase was only about a robbery. r followed what they told me and stuck to it over theyears.") Second, under subsection (b)(2), the affidavit(s) establish that the claim,which turns on Marc Draper's evidence about the killing of Mr. Norwood and theCommonwealth's suppression of that evidence and presentation of a slanted versionto the jury, is properly before this Court, (M., inter alia, 9111/12 affidavit atparagraph 9 ("I would not talk to Terry's lawyers before [January 9,2012] .. .1 wouldnot talk. .. ")). As Petitioner has pled a claim that falls within section 9545(b), theCourt has jurisdiction, see Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264, 1270-71 (Pa.2007), and "[q]uestions (as to proof) require further fact-findings"; this Court, "asfactfinder," must determine at a hearing whether the "proof requirement" is met. rd.,930 A.2d 1264, 1270-71 (Pa. 2007).Supplemental Notice of Filing, at 1-2.Judge Sarminaheard additional oral argument on September 14, 2012, at which Mr. Williamsargued that his pleadings and proffers made a prima facie showing of timeliness, requiring that anevidentiary hearing be held. See,~, NT 9/14/12,5-6. At the conclusion of September 14, 2012proceedings, based on Mr. Williams' allegations and proffers, Judge Sarmina found that he had madea sufficient prima facie showing of timeliness under section 9545(b)(1 )-(2) to require that anevidentiary hearing be held, consistent with Bennett, supra. NT 9/14112,69.11
Page 1: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANI
Page 4 and 5: testimony, the parties' written sub
Page 6 and 7: alia, the original trial and capita
Page 8 and 9: inappropriate in any case, but it i
Page 12 and 13: The Commonwealth, citing Commonweal
Page 14 and 15: 1. Government interference.Mr. Will
Page 16 and 17: knowledge ofMr. Draper's statements
Page 18 and 19: of assault with intent to murder, a
Page 20: As a prosecution witness ... , [Dra
Page 23 and 24: Judge Sarmina appropriately found t
Page 25 and 26: Norwood files Ms. Foulkes stated, "
Page 27 and 28: A. Yes.Q. How Mr. Norwood was kille
Page 29 and 30: There was additional undisclosed ev
Page 31 and 32: connect all of the dots." NT 9/2811
Page 33 and 34: e afforded relief as to the penalty
Page 35 and 36: himself would necessarily know that
Page 37 and 38: One, that all the requirements of t
Page 39 and 40: their findings and recommendations.
Page 41 and 42: Sexual Assault Resource and Counsel
Page 43 and 44: CONCLUSIONThe Commonwealth's motion
Page 45 and 46: ATTACHMENT A
Page 47 and 48: ATTACHMENT B
Page 49 and 50: 3. Chief Justice Castille was the D
Page 51 and 52: INQUIRER (Oct. 21, 1993) (available
Page 53 and 54: allegation"); Beasley. 937 A.2d at
Page 55 and 56: was the District Attorney responsib
Page 57 and 58: Ripe for Disqualification. 52 Ariz.
Page 59 and 60: 1130,1134 (6th Cir.1969) (applying
Page 61 and 62:
objective standards that govern rec
Page 63:
Court's adoption of the following "
show all

Response in Opposition to the Commonwealth's Motion to Vacate

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?