Com. v. Harvey, W.
121 EDA 2014
Pa. Super. Ct.Oct 18, 2016Background
- On Sept. 20, 2010, Darnell Thomas and two fellow Street Kings members went to meet "Sky"; while leaving, Thomas was shot in the wrist and hip and Donnell Wright was later shot in the legs. Witnesses identified William Harvey as the lone shooter.
- Police obtained Harvey’s name from Sky’s brother and used an unrelated photo of Harvey in a photo array; both victims identified Harvey from that array.\
- A poor-quality photograph from Sky’s Facebook page, which victims thought might depict the shooter, was shown to police shortly after the shooting but was not retained in police files and was not produced at trial.\
- Harvey requested production of the Facebook photo before trial; the Commonwealth could not locate it and made its case file available to the defense. The trial court instructed the jury they could infer the photo would have favored Harvey.\
- Harvey was convicted of multiple aggravated assault and related offenses and sentenced to an aggregate 22–50 years. He appealed, arguing a Brady violation based on the Commonwealth’s failure to produce the Facebook photo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether suppression of the Facebook photo violated Brady (due process) | Harvey: the missing photo was favorable/exculpatory or impeaching and the Commonwealth suppressed it, warranting reversal or new trial | Commonwealth: photo was not in prosecution’s possession; defendants had equal access (on girlfriend’s Facebook); nothing for prosecution to produce | Court: No Brady violation because prosecution did not possess the photo; defense had equal access and could have obtained it; therefore Brady not implicated |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecution must disclose favorable, material evidence to the defense)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1995) (prosecutor’s Brady duty extends to favorable evidence known to others acting for the government)
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (U.S. 1988) (failure to preserve evidence is distinct from Brady; due-process claim for unpreserved evidence generally requires bad faith)
- Commonwealth v. Lambert, 884 A.2d 848 (Pa. 2005) (summary of Brady law in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Weiss, 81 A.3d 767 (Pa. 2013) (elements required to prove a Brady violation)