Response in Opposition to the Commonwealth's Motion to Vacate

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Mamie Norwood and Reverend Charles Poindexter, removing information that either directly orindirectly demonstrated that the victim was a homosexual ephebophiliac," and that Ms. Foulkes"failed to disclose information in her possession that the victim had made sexual advances on ateenage member of his church, and that there were other possible instances of sexual impropriety."NT 9/28/12, 23.The withheld evidence would have impeached the testimony of Reverend Poindexter andMamie Norwood, both of whom painted a benign, loving, caring and starkly inaccurate portrait ofMr. Norwood. See NT 9/28/12, 35-36 ("Had the evidence detailed above been disclosed, it couldhave been used by a reasonable defense ~ttomey to impeach the testimony of both Mamie Norwoodand Reverend Charles Poindexter, in which they characterize Mr. Norwood as a kind churchvolunteer who wanted to help out the kids ofthe neighborhood").Mr. Williams' knowledge that he was sexually abused by Mr. Norwood did not relieve theCommonwealth of its duty under the Due Process Clause. The Commonwealth's suppression ofevidence is particularly egregious given that it has argued for years that Mr. Williams' claims ofsexual abuse are self-serving and defamatory.Judge Sarmina correctly found that theCommonwealth violated due process.JUDGE SARMINA PROPERLY STAYED MR. WILLIAMS' EXECUTIONGiven her findings and ruling on jurisdiction, timeliness, and the merits, Judge Sarminaproperly exercised her discretion under this Court's precedent to grant a stay of execution. As JudgeSarmina stated on September 28,2012:The Court finds that the petitioner is entitled to a stay of execution under Section9545(c), given that petitioner has met his burden under Morris II to, quote,demonstrate:36
One, that all the requirements of this subchapter have been met;Two, that there is a pending stay application;And, Three, that there is a strong likelihood of success on the merits.Petitioner exceeded the strong likelihood threshold, demonstrating actual success onthe merits with respect to the penalty phase.Under section 9545( c), petitioner needed to demonstrate that he met all therequirements of this subchapter.Both Morris I and Morris II make it explicitly clear that the above languageincorporated the jurisdictional provision of Section 9545(b) into the analysis ofgranting a stay of execution.For this Court to have jurisdiction, that is, the power or authority to reach the meritsof his claims, petitioner must have established that his claims fall under at least oneof three narrowly defined exceptions to the PCRA.Here, petitioner maintained that he had met the following two exceptions:One, which is actually Subsection i, that the failure to raise the claim previously wasthe result of interference by government officials with the presentation of the claimin violation of the Constitution or laws of this Cornmonwealth, or the Constitutionor laws of the United States;And, ii, that the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to thepetitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence.This Court has jurisdiction in this case, given that petitioner demonstratedgovernmental interference pursuant to Section 9545(b )(1 )(i), and that the claim,which could not have been raised earlier with the exercise of due diligence, was filedwithin 60 days ofthe date that it first could have been presented pursuant to Section9545(b )(2).Petitioner has proved that failure to raise the claim previously was the result ofinterference by government officials with the presentation of the claim in violationof the Constitution.NT 9/28/12 at 13-15.We note thatto lift the stay put in place by Judge Sarmina would disserve the public interest.37
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 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: himself would necessarily know that
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?