Com. v. Adams, J., 813 WDA 2016

Appellant Jordan Timothy Adams sought dismissal of criminal charges on double jeopardy grounds after his initial trial ended in a mistrial when the Commonwealth failed to disclose exculpatory videotaped interviews of a co-conspirator.
The trial court found three Brady violations by the prosecution but deemed them negligent rather than intentional, and denied dismissal.
The trial court also found that Corporal Zeybel of the Pennsylvania State Police habitually only placed recorded polygraph interviews into case evidence when they contained inculpatory statements, contrary to PSP regulations.
Zeybel admitted he omitted recordings he considered non-"evidentiary" (exculpatory) and did not always recognize that co-defendant interviews were part of the defendant’s case; he continued some noncompliant practices even after the mistrial.
The Majority acknowledged police discovery obligations and left open that intentional police misconduct could bar retrial but accepted the trial court’s finding of lack of intent by the officers.
Judge Ransom (dissent) argued the officer’s admitted, ongoing practice of withholding exculpatory recordings intentionally subverted the court process and warranted dismissal under double jeopardy principles.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Commonwealth's/Officer's Argument	Held
Whether prosecution misconduct (Brady violations) that led to a mistrial bars retrial under double jeopardy	Prosecutor and police intentionally withheld exculpatory videotapes, so retrial is barred	Brady violations were negligent/miscommunication; not intended to deprive defendant of a fair trial, so retrial allowed	Trial court found negligence, not intent; Majority denied dismissal and allowed retrial; dissent would reverse
Whether police practice of only entering inculpatory recordings into evidence constitutes intentional deprivation of a fair trial warranting dismissal	Officer’s admitted practice of excluding non‑inculpatory recordings intentionally subverts discovery and prejudices defendants	Officer claimed he misapplied regulations, lacked intent to deprive defendants; practice was error/oversight	Majority accepted lack of intent; dissent concluded practice was intentional and would bar retrial

Commonwealth v. Burke, 781 A.2d 1136 (Pa. 2001) (prosecution duty to disclose favorable evidence extends to police files)
Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 820 A.2d 795 (Pa. Super. 2003) (duty to disclose extends to others acting on government’s behalf, including police)
Commonwealth v. Snyder, 963 A.2d 396 (Pa. 2009) (destruction of exculpatory evidence can violate due process regardless of intent when in bad faith)
Commonwealth v. Kearns, 70 A.3d 881 (Pa. Super. 2013) (intentional prosecutorial misconduct raises systemic concerns and can bar retrial)
Commonwealth v. Graham, 109 A.3d 735 (Pa. 2014) (retrial barred where prosecutor intentionally deprived defendant of a fair trial)