Response in Opposition to the Commonwealth's Motion to Vacate

More documents

Recommendations

Info

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIACOMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,Petitioner, No. 163 EM 2012v.TERRANCE WILLIAMS,Respondent.RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO RECUSE CHIEF JUSTICE CASTILLERespondent Terrance Williams, through counsel, respectfully moves for recusal of ChiefJustice Ronald D. Castille from the instant proceedings. In support of this motion, Mr. Williamsstates as follows: 11. ChiefJustice Castille was the District Attomeyfor Philadelphia from January 1, 1986until March 12, 1991.2. Chief Justice Castille personally authorized his Office to seek the death penalty inthis case, hand-writing the following on a memorandum to Mark Gottlieb, Chief of his Office's.Homicide Unit, which was introduced as an exhibit during the recent PCRA evidentiary hearing:Mark,Approved to proceed on the Death Penalty.Is! Ronald D. CastillePCRA Evidentiary Hearing Exhibit P-1, Memorandum to Mark Gottlieb, Chief, Homicide Unit, page2 (dated 1121/86) (appended as exhibit A); see also NT 9/20/12 (am.) at 11 (trial prosecutor AndreaFoulkes identifies ChiefJustice Castille's signature on this document as authorizing the approval toproceed on the death penalty).tAll emphasis herein is supplied unless otherwise indicated.
3. Chief Justice Castille was the District Attorney throughout the trial, capitalsentencing, post-trial, and direct appeal proceedings in this case.4. On direct appeal in Mr. Williams' case, the Philadelphia District Attorney's Officefiled a Brief in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, asking the Court to affirm Mr. Williams'convictions and death sentence. Then-District Attorney Castille is identified as one of the listedcounsel for the Commonwealth on the cover and signature page of the Brief (appended as exhibitB).5. In the current PCRA proceedings, evidence was introduced that, on June 23, 1988,trial prosecutor Foulkes wrote a letter to the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole on behalfof Marc Draper, a key Commonwealth witness at Mr. Williams' trial. See PCRA EvidentiaryHearing Exhibit P-15 (appended as exhibit C). The letter asks the Board to "consider [Mr. Draper's 1cooperation ... when determining his eligibility for parole or commutation," and notes that thisrecommendation from the prosecutor was a "benefit or promise conveyed to" Mr. Draper inexchange for his testimony against Mr. Williams. Id. at 2. The trial prosecutor testified at the recentPCRA hearing that this promise to the Commonwealth's witness was not disclosed to the defenseat trial. In her PCRA ruling, Court of Common Pleas Judge Sarrnina cited this undisclosedinducement, among several other items of evidence, as evidence demonstrating that the trial .prosecutor suppressed eXCUlpatory evidence, played "fast and loose" with the truth, "had no problemdisregarding her ethical obligations," and "took unfair measures to win." NT 9/28/12 at 37,3945.Although Chief Justice Castille is not the signatory of the letter, the letter is written on the officialletterhead of the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office and the sole name on the letterhead is"Ronald D. Castille, District Attorney." Iffor no other reason than the appearance of impropriety,Respondent respectfully suggests that recusal is appropriate for this reason as well.6. In 1993, Chief Justice Castille campaigned for a position as a Justice on the2
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 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: ATTACHMENT B
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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?