FREE CONSULTATIONS

Email or Call (215) 564-0644

    Prosecutorial Misconduct & Appeals/PCRA – What is a Brady Violation in Pennsylvania?

    Many defendants who are interested in filing Post Conviction Relief Act petitions often want to know whether they can raise claims of prosecutorial misconduct. In fact, claims of prosecutorial misconduct are one of the most common issues raised in Post Conviction Relief Act petitions, especially those that are filed pro se (without a lawyer).

    Related: Pennsylvania PCRA Law: What is the time deadline to file a PCRA petition?

    The reality is that prosecutorial misconduct claims are often unsuccessful for two reasons. First, they are often difficult to support with sufficient evidence, and second, they are often hard to win because the legal standard is high. However, this does not mean that prosecutorial misconduct claims should be ignored. They in fact, should be scrutinized carefully because prosecutors do make mistakes.

    Most prosecutorial misconduct claims involve claims that the prosecutor suppressed or withheld evidence. This is generally known as a “Brady” violation, named after a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, Brady v. Maryland (1963).

    Related: Brady Violations & Newly Discovered Evidence – Exceptions to Pennsylvania’s 1 Year PCRA Petition Law

    In Pennsylvania, criminal defendants can establish Brady violations if the prosecution suppressed either exculpatory evidence or impeachment evidence that was favorable to the accused. In addition, there is an additional requirement – withholding that evidence must have prejudiced the defendant.

    Impeachment Evidence

    Many defendants who want to file PCRA petitions often have questions about impeachment evidence, such as evidence that a witness had a prior conviction for lying. For example, in a murder case where an eyewitness identified the defendant as the killer, impeachment evidence is a crimen falsi conviction (conviction for lying or other fraudulent conduct). In other words, the eyewitness had a prior conviction for lying.

    In these types of situations, which are quite common in criminal appeals in Pennsylvania, courts will not grant relief to defendants if the information was equally available to both the prosecution and defense. Basically, a defendant’s PCRA claim will be denied if both parties had equal access to the information, or if the defendant could have reasonably uncovered the evidence by exercising reasonable diligence.

    Therefore, the prosecution’s failure to provide prior conviction records of prosecution witnesses is highly unlikely to support a claim for prosecutorial misconduct. However, failing to uncover that a key witness had a prior conviction may support an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

    This is precisely what happened in Commonwealth v. Grant, a 2002 Pennsylvania Supreme Court case. There, the defendant argued that the prosecution failed to reveal that the key witness had more than one crimen falsi conviction. He also argued that the prosecution failed to reveal that the same witness was on parole at the time of the trial.

    At trial, the judge refused to allow the defendant to attack the credibility of the witness because the convictions the defendant did know about were too old (Pennsylvania rules of evidence impose a 10 year time limitation). On appeal, the defendant argued that had he known about the existence of an additional crimen falsi conviction as well as the fact that the witness was on parole, the trial judge may have allowed him to attack the credibility of the witness.

    The Pennsylvania Supreme Court found in favor of the prosecution on this point. Because the evidence could have been uncovered by the defense, it did not amount to a Brady violation.

    Click here for more PA criminal appeals/PCRA legal articles.

    Want to File a PCRA Petition or Appeal in Pennsylvania?

    If you or a loved one wants to file an appeal or PCRA petition in Pennsylvania, please contact our office for a free case assessment. Our criminal defense lawyers are experienced trial and appellate lawyers. (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"
    (2015-2022)

    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...

    Att. MURDER CHARGES – NOT GUILTY JURY VERDICT (April 2022, PHILA)

    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...

    MURDER, Robbery CHARGES – NOT GUILTY JURY VERDICT (MAY 2021, PHILA)

    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...

    MURDER CHARGE – NOT GUILTY JURY VERDICT (MAY 2021, PHILA)

    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 Possession Case – Motion to Suppress Granted

    Mr. Nenner presented evidence that to show that the traffic stop was a pretextual stop. The officer had no reason to pull the car over. The judge agreed and suppressed the evidence. As a result, the prosecution withdrew the charges.

    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.