Response in Opposition to the Commonwealth's Motion to Vacate

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1. Government interference.Mr. Williams proved in the PCRA court that the Government interfered with his presentationof his claims, in violation of his right to due process under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963),Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449 (2009), Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668 (2004), and Napuev. Illinois, 360U.S. 264 (1959).Judge Sarmina found, inter alia, the following with respect to Government interference:By removing direct and indirect information which demonstrated that AmosNorwood had homosexual relationships with teenage boys from the statements thatwere turned over to the defense, the government interfered with the presentation ofthis claim.... The only way that petitioner could have demonstrated a Brady claimbased upon the fact that there was information in the District Attorney's file and thePhiladelphia Police Department's file was to actually go into the files themselves.NT 9/28/12, 16.Judge Sarmina's finding - which the Commonwealth fails to address - is legally correct andsupported by the record. The evidence that witnesses presented by the Commonwealth at trial knewthat Mr. Norwood was an ephebophile was concealed by the Commonwealth in its police andprosecutorial files and not disclosed until the PCRA proceedings conducted within the last twoweeks. These circumstances establish governmental interference with the presentation of this claim.See Commonwealth v. Lambert, 888 A,2d 848, 852 (Pa. 2005) (finding "facts set forth in the policefile" were not known to petitioner and therefore claim was timely under newly discovered evidenceexception).In addition, the evidence presented below establishes that Marc Draper told Philadelphiapolice officers and the trial prosecutor, Andrea Foulkes, that Mr. Williams (then just over eighteen)was involved in a sexual "relationship" with the decedent, Amos Norwood, that the murder was14
motivated by that "relationship," and that at the time ofthe homicide Mr. Williams "snapped" andacted crazy. NT 9/20112 pm at 169, 179-80, 190, 197-98. Mr. Draper further testified thatthe policethreatened and coerced him to change his story, and coached him to testifY that the motive for themurder was robbery alone, id. at 177-78, while Ms. Foulkes suppressed his account of the"relationship." rd. at 198-99. Mr. Draper was intimidated into testifYing falsely by threats toprosecute him for the unsolved murder of a pregnant woman, Donna Friedman. rd. at 160-61, 182,186. The Donna Friedman case remains unsolved, and the threats, i.e., the governmentalinterference, are the reason why Mr. Draper would not reveal the truth until now. As became crystalclear when Mr. Draper was questioned by Judge Sarmina, the threat stayed with him "forever." NT9/20/12 pm at 208.The facts that Mr. Draper told the prosecuting authorities the truth, but that they did notdisclose his statements or the other evidence of ephebophilia, and instead coerced Mr. Draper to givefalse testimony, establish violations of Brady and Napue. See,~, Brady, 373 U.S. at 87 (dueprocess is violated "where the [suppressed] evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment");Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. at 271 (relief is warranted where there is any reasonable likelihood thatfalse testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury); see also Alcorta v. State of Texas, 355U.S. 28, 31-32 (1957) (due process violated where the state created a false impression about thecircumstances and motive in the crime).As noted, the Commonwealth continued to interfere with Mr. Williams' ability to raise theseclaims. Mr. Draper remained intimidated by the threat of prosecution in the Donna Friedman caseuntil he finally disclosed the truth to current counsel earlier this year. NT 9/20/12 pm at211-12; NT9/24/12 pm at 20-21. Moreover, the Commonwealth was under a continuing duty to disclose its15
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 10 and 11: that Mr. Draper told the prosecutin
Page 12 and 13: The Commonwealth, citing Commonweal
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 "

Response in Opposition to the Commonwealth's Motion to Vacate

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?