Response in Opposition to the Commonwealth's Motion to Vacate

More documents

Recommendations

Info

testimony, the parties' written submissions, the oral arguments, and the relevant law, Judge Sarminamade findings of jurisdiction, timeliness and constitutional violations by the Commonwealth.This Court carmot possibly provide meaningful appellate review ofJudge Sarmina' s findingsof fact and conclusions of law in the rush-to-judgment marmer urged by the Commonwealth."The fundamental tool for appellate review is the official record of what happened at trial,and appellate Courts are limited to considering only those facts that have been duly certified in therecord on appeal."Commonwealth v. Williams, 715 A.2d 1101, 1103 (pa. 1998) (citingCommonwealth v. Young, 317 A.2d 258, 264 (Pa. 1974)). See also Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817,822 (1977) ("adequate and effective appellate review is impossible without" trial record (internalquotation marks omitted)); Commonwealth v. Goldsmith, 304 A.2d 478, 480 (Pa. 1973)("meaningful appellate review is impossible absent a full transcript" or trial record). In this case, thePCRA court record this Court needs for meaningful appellate review includes:The Transcript of Ruling of the Court of Common Pleas (9/28112) (addressing, inter alia,jurisdiction, timeliness, governmental interference, diligence, Mr. Williams' amendmentsand supplements, prosecutorial misconduct, the merits, and the stay of execution);The Transcripts of Evidentiary Hearing (9/20112, 9/24112, 9/25/12) (including thepresentation of testimonial and documentary evidence, and oral arguments from the partieson, inter alia, jurisdiction, timeliness, governmental interference, diligence, Mr. Williams'amendments and supplements, prosecutorial misconduct, and the merits);The Transcripts of Pre-Hearing Proceedings (9/10/12, 9111112, 9/14112) (addressing, interalia, jurisdiction, timeliness, governmental interference, diligence, Mr. Williams' proffersand pleadings, the propriety of an evidentiary hearing to address the procedural andsubstantive issues in this case, and the stay of execution);The PCRA Court Evidentiary Hearing Exhibits (introduced during the proceedings in theCourt of Common Pleas), including: P-l (Memo re Death Penalty Authorization forNorwood case); P-2 (Draper Statement-Norwood case); P-3 (Draper Statement-Hamiltoncase); P-4 (discovery letter to defense counsel in Norwood case (11115/84)); P-5 (entry fromprosecutor Foulkes' notes); P-6 (same); P-7 (same); P-8 (same); P-9 (same); P-I0 (Statement4
of Ronald Rucker (7/19/84)); P-ll (entry from prosecutor Foulkes' notes); P-12 (excerptfrom prosecutor Foulkes prior PCRA hearing testimony); P-13 (Statement ofBemard Collinsin Hamilton case); P-14 (Draper Agreement); P-15 (prosecutor Foulkes' letter to PardonsBoard); P-16 (Draper Affidavits); P-17 (Chronology ofInterrogation and/or Custody re:Marc Draper); P-18 (Philadelphia Daily News article (7/20/1984)); P-19 (letter from JohnS. Manos, Esq. to prosecutor Foulkes (7/10190)); P-20 (Police Statement of George Bivins);P-21 (Police Statement of Lance Brown); P-22 (Police Statement of William Harris); P-23(Discovery letter to defense counsel in Hamilton case); P-24 (Activity Sheets and DailyComplaint Summaries); P-25 (Polygraph Examination and related documents for MarcDraper (7/2111984)); P-26 (polygraph Examination of Marc Draper (7/2111984)); P-27(Polygraph Examination of Marc Draper (8/17/1984)); P-28 (Police Report (4/30/1985)); P-29 (Police Statement (Reverend Charles L. Poindexter)); COURT-I (entry from prosecutorFoulkes' notes); COURT-2 (same); COURT-3 (same); COURT-4 (same); COURT-5 (same);COURT-6 (entry from police file); COURT-7 (same); COURT-8 (same); COURT-9 (same);COURT-I0 (same); COURT-II (prosecutor Foulkes' Notes).The PCRA Court Filings on behalf of Terrance Williams, who prevailed in the Court ofCommon Pleas: Amendment and Supplement to Petition for Post-Conviction Relief (withleave of Court, granted on September 25,2012) (9128/12); Notice of Filing (Affidavits ofJennifer Givens and Eric Montroy) (9128/12); Memorandum of Decisions Supporting ReliefUnder Napue v. Illinois and Alcorta v. Texas (9127/12); Motion to Conform the Petition tothe Hearing Evidence and to Supplement and Amend (with Supplement and Amendment)(9124112) (granted on 9125/12); Memorandum regarding Access to Witnesses and Documents(9/17/12); Supplemental Notice of Filing (9/14/12); Notice of Filing, Including Affidavit ofMarc Draper (9113/12); Notice of Authority (Commonwealth v. Miller, 746 A.2d 592 (Pa.2000)) (9/10/12); Notice of Authority (Cone v. Bell, 129 S.Ct. 1769 (2009)) (9/10112);Motion for Discovery (916/12); Notice of Filing, Letter from trial prosecutor Foulkes to PABoard of Probation & Parole on behalf of Marc Draper (9/4/12); Notice of Filing, Affidavitof Nicholas Panarella (8/31112); Renewed Motion for Stay of Execution (8/28/12);Supplemental Petition for PCRA Relief and Notice of Filing of Additional Evidence inSupport of Stay of Execution (07/27/2012); Supplemental Appendix (07/27/2012);Memorandum (07/24/2012); Appendix to PCRA - Case No. 2362-2367 (07/16/2012);Appendix to PCRA - Case No. 8409-0797-801 (07/16/2012); PCRA Petition - Case No.2362-2367 (03/0912012); PCRA Petition - Case No. 8409-0797-801 (03/0912012).3Moreover, the above are just materials from the record created in the current proceedings.Meaningful appellate review will require this Court to consider additional materials that are part ofthe prior court record of this case, and which were considered by Judge Sarmina, including, inter3The Commonwealth, which did not prevail in the Court of Common Pleas, has not evenprovided its own submissions or hearing exhibits to this Court.5
Page 1: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANI
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 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?