Response in Opposition to the Commonwealth's Motion to Vacate

More documents

Recommendations

Info

alia, the original trial and capital sentencing record, and the record from prior PCRA proceedings.The "duty to search for constitutional error with painstaking care is never more exacting thanit is in a capital case." Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 422 (1995). Judge Sarmina performed thecareful review required by the United States Constitution. This Court should do no less. The onlyway for this Court to fairly resolve this case is through the normal course of appellate review, shouldthe Commonwealth elect to take a proper appeal. This Court should deny the Commonwealth'smotion to vacate the stay of execution.SCOPE AND STANDARD OF REVIEWNowhere in its submission to this Court does the Commonwealth describe this Court'sstandard of review. Judge Sarmina reviewed an extensive documentary record, held several oralarguments, heard two days of live testimony, and made credibility findings. This Court's lawrequires that Judge Sarmina's findings receive "great deference";The findings of a post-conviction court, which hears evidence and passes on thecredibility of witnesses, should be given great deference. We will not disturb thefindings of the PCRA court if they are supported by the record, even where the recordcould support a contrary holding .... This Court's scope of review is limited to thefindings of the PCRA court and the evidence on the record of the PCRA court'shearing, viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party.Commonwealth v. Jones, 912 A.2d 268, 293 (Pa. 2006) (citations omitted). Accord Commonwealthv. Collins, 888 A.2d 564, 580 n.21 (Pa. 2005) (same); Commonwealth v. Martin, 5 AJd 177, 197,201 (Pa. 2010) (same); Commonwealth v. White, 734 A.2d 374, 381 (Pa. 1999) ("[T]here is nojustification for an appellate court, relying solely upon a cold record, to review the fact-finder'sfirst-hand credibility determinations."); Commonwealth ex reI. Spriggs v. Carson, 368 A.2d 635,637, 639 (Pa. 1977) ("It is a principle which runs through all our cases that the credibility of6
witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony by reason of their character, intelligence, andknowledge of the subject can best be determined by the judge before whom they appear .... [Thehearing judge ] alone had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses in this case, and therefore hadthe better opportunity to pass upon their demeanor and character. These are qualities which cannotbe divined from the mechanistic reading of a cold record. "); Commonwealth v. Grant, 813 A,2d 726,734 (Pa. 2002) ("Most importantly, appellate courts do not act as fact finders, since to do so wouldrequire an assessment of the credibility of the testimony and that is clearly not our function."(internal quotation marks omitted)).This "great deference" due Judge Sarmina's findings is also due her decision to hold anevidentiary hearing, which was well within her discretion, see Commonwealth v. Dennis, 950 A,2d945,979 (Pa. 2008) (stating this Court's "continued reliance on the PCRA court, in its discretion,to evaluate as necessary questions of waiver and the adequacy of the record and argument withrespect to each issue, to consider ... the necessity of permitting [a petitioner] to amend his pleadings..., and to hold further evidentiary hearings, if necessary, on the issues"); Commonwealth v. Jones,912 A,2d 268, 276, 281 (Pa. 2006) (PCRA court's decision to hold an evidentiary hearing andevidentiary rulings are reviewed for "clear abuse of discretion"), and, in the context of Mr. Williams'case, was plainly appropriate under Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A,2d 1264, 1274 (Pa. 2007)(when a petitioner's "allegations bring his claim within the ambit of' an exception to the PCRA'sone year limitations provision, "he must still prove that it meets the requirements therein .... Suchquestions require further fact-finding and the PCRA court, acting as fact finder, should determinewhether [the petitioner] met the "proof' requirement").The Commonwealth's cavalier attitude toward the PCRA Judge's findings and discretion is7
Page 1: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANI
Page 4 and 5: testimony, the parties' written sub
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?