Email or Call (215) 564-0644

    Philadelphia Criminal Drug Case Appeal News – Court Rules in Favor of Defendant Due to a Brady Violation

    Commonwealth v. Matthews, Pennsylvania Superior Court (May 26, 2015)

    Commonwealth v. Matthews is a very interesting, recent PA criminal appeals case involving convictions for possession of a controlled substance and possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver (i.e., drug dealing). The defendant in the case appealed his convictions, arguing that the prosecutor withheld exculpatory (favorable) evidence which caused prejudice. This is known as a Brady violation.

    What’s a Brady Violation?

    Under Brady v. Maryland, a U.S. Supreme Court case, the prosecution has an obligation to disclose all exculpatory information material to the guilt or punishment of an accused, including evidence which can impeach a witness. Impeachment evidence is basically any evidence which conflicts with a witness’ expected trial testimony. In other words, if you expect a witness to testify to “X” at trial, but you know that the witness has previously stated “Y,” then you are under an obligation to disclose that evidence.

    The standard to win a criminal appeal or Post Conviction Relief Act petition due to a Brady violation is quite high. The defendant has to prove the following:

    1. the prosecutor withheld evidence,
    2. the evidence, whether exculpatory or impeaching, is helpful to the defendant, and
    3. the failure to disclose the evidence prejudiced the defendant’s case.

    Summary of the Facts

    Two Philadelphia Police officers were on patrol in a purported “high-crime” area in Philadelphia. The officers testified that they observed behavior which led them to believe that defendant Matthews was engaging in a drug sale with another individual. After Matthews was stopped and searched, officers uncovered a prescription bottle containing about 40 bags of crack cocaine totaling roughly 2 grams. No other evidence of drug selling was uncovered on Matthews, such as scales, known cutting agents, etc.

    At trial, Matthews argued that he had a serious drug problem and also argued that the drugs were solely for his own personal use. Therefore, he could not have been guilty of the drug dealing charge. To counter this, the prosecution presented evidence that Matthews did not look like a typical drug user and also argued this to the jury. Matthews’ first trial resulted in a hung jury on the drug dealing charge (possession with intent to deliver). A mistrial was declared, and he was subsequently convicted on that charge after a second trial.

    Brady Evidence at Issue in the Case

    The Brady evidence at issue in the case was written statements of the arresting officers which were made during an Internal Affairs investigation. In those statements, the arresting officers indicated that Matthews looked extremely intoxicated when he was arrested. These statements conflicted with the officers’ trial testimony and were only provided to the defense after the second trial had already concluded. Matthews immediately raised the issue with the trial court, which refused to order a new trial, and he was sentenced to 3 years of probation. Matthews then filed an appeal with the Superior Court.

    Related: Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) Petition – Newly Discovered Evidence

    Superior Court’s Analysis of this Brady Issue

    The court found that the statements of the officers made during the Internal Affairs investigation raised an issue as to whether Matthews possessed the drugs for personal use, rather than with the intent to sell them. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the trial court for a full hearing on the issue of whether the statements were in fact Brady evidence and whether the failure to turn them over to the defense caused prejudice.

    It will be interesting to see what happens when the case is remanded back to the trial court.

    About Our Criminal Appeals Practice

    Our lawyers pride themselves on being criminal trial lawyers, and this gives them a unique perspective when handling appeals and PCRA petitions. Oftentimes, the success of an appeal or PCRA petition depends on scouring the trial record. That’s why it’s important to have a criminal appeals lawyer with real world trial experience. Call for a free consultation. (215) 564-0644

    Disclaimer: This website does not create any attorney-client relationship or provide legal advice. Our lawyers provide legal advice only after accepting a case. It is imperative that any action taken is done on advice of counsel. Read full disclaimer below.

    David S. Nenner

    "Top Rated Criminal Defense Lawyer"

    Not guilty on 1st Degree MURDER CHARGE (dec. 2022, Pottsville, Pa)

    Mr. Nenner's client faced first degree murder, third degree murder and various other charges. The Commonwealth alleged that Mr. Whitted stabbed and killed a driver after an incident at a red light in West Brunswick Township. Throughout the trial, Mr. Nenner argued...

    MURDER, Att. Murder CHARGES – Negotiated Significantly Lower prison sentence (Feb. 2022, PHILA)

    Mr. Anderson faced murder and attempted murder charges after an incident in Northeast Philadelphia involving the shooting death of Anderson’s sister’s boyfriend and the boyfriend’s roommate who was shot 5 times and survived. The decedent had previously beaten the...


    The Commonwealth alleged that Mr. Shelton shot and seriously injured a male in a bar in North Philadelphia called Circles. There was video of the shooting which happened outside the bar. However, Mr. Nenner presented witnesses who testified that the person in the bar...


    Mr. Nenner's client was charged with multiple crimes (murder, conspiracy, aggravated assault, robbery, etc.) after a shooting death occurred at a gambling house in North Philadelphia. At trial, Mr. Nenner successfully presented a self-defense argument and convinced...


    Mr. Nenner’s client was charged with murder and gun charges in Philadelphia. The client was accused of shooting and killing another male on Arch Street near the 5600 block of Ithan Street in Philadelphia. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty after deliberating...

    Drug Charges in Philadelphia PA State Court – Possession of a Controlled Substance

    In most criminal drug cases in Philadelphia, there are two common charges or offenses: Possession of a Controlled Substance and Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver. In addition to these drug charges, there are other drug related charges, such...

    Drug Charges in Philadelphia PA State Court – What is “Possession”

    Page last reviewed and updated: October 20, 2019 One of the most common types of criminal state (PA) cases in Philadelphia is possession of drugs. Possession of a Controlled Substance (PCS) and Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver (PWID) often...

    Pennsylvania Second Degree Murder (AKA: Felony Murder) Law

    Philadelphia criminal lawyer David S. Nenner discusses the current status of second degree murder law in Pennsylvania. This is also known as the felony murder rule. Get info about PA court decisions and the agency theory. Not every case of death during the commission of a felony will result in a second degree murder conviction in PA.

    Philadelphia Murder Cases – Police Investigation Tactics

    Questioning Police Officer Tactics in Philadelphia Murder Cases Within the last 10 years, there have been several murder Philadelphia criminal cases in which the accused individuals were acquitted of the crimes. In these cases, the individuals spent months, if not...

    Murder Charges in Pennsylvania – Murder Law in Pennsylvania

    An explanation of Pennsylvania murder laws including Section 2502. What is murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree and murder in the third degree. Get a summary of the definitions under Pennsylvania criminal law.