Com. v. Johnson, K.
2396 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 9, 2018Background
- Kareem Johnson was convicted of first‑degree murder after a 2006 bench trial and sentenced to life without parole; direct appeals were denied.
- Johnson filed a timely PCRA petition; over years the PCRA court allowed multiple amendments and entertained a broad discovery request in 2015–2016.
- Defense sought the Philadelphia Homicide Division investigative file (121 categories), alleging withheld Brady material (e.g., a Garraway memorandum recounting Rafi Smith’s interview and forensic/ballistics material from two vehicles).
- The Commonwealth initially resisted discovery and only raised the investigative/executive privilege after the PCRA court ordered in camera production.
- The PCRA court found exceptional circumstances (pattern of withheld pretrial material, complexity/volume of evidence, reasonable theories supporting self‑defense/Brady claims) and ordered the homicide file to the court chambers for in camera review.
- Superior Court affirmed, holding the order appealable as a collateral order and that the PCRA court did not abuse its discretion in ordering in camera review and limited discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appealability of discovery order | Order overruling privilege is immediately appealable. | Order is interlocutory/non‑appealable because privilege not timely asserted. | Order is a collateral order and appealable because disclosure would be irreparably lost if review postponed. |
| Whether PCRA discovery requires "exceptional circumstances" | Exceptional circumstances exist: pattern of withheld materials; specific leads (Garraway memo; vehicle ballistics) supporting self‑defense/Brady claims. | No exceptional circumstances; request is an improper fishing expedition and late. | PCRA court did not abuse discretion; record supported exceptional circumstances. |
| Whether Commonwealth's investigative/executive privilege bars disclosure | Privilege not absolute where investigation/prosecution concluded and substantial need exists; withheld materials may be Brady material. | Privilege protects investigative files; production would harm law‑enforcement interests. | Privilege not sufficient here; investigation long concluded and public‑policy secrecy interest outweighed by defendant’s need for potentially exculpatory material. In camera review ordered. |
| Scope/remedy of discovery (in camera review vs full production) | Court should inspect entire Homicide Division file to identify Brady material; limited disclosure thereafter. | Production to court chambers violated privilege and was excessive. | Court lawfully ordered production to chambers for in camera review (supervised, limited disclosure to determine Brady material). |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 876 A.2d 939 (Pa. 2005) (collateral‑order framework for appealability)
- Commonwealth v. Makara, 980 A.2d 138 (Pa. Super. 2009) (discovery orders involving privileged information may be collateral)
- Commonwealth v. Frey, 41 A.3d 605 (Pa. Super. 2012) (PCRA discovery granted where unusual facts and reasonable theory supported likely Brady/exculpatory material)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor’s obligation to disclose exculpatory and impeachment evidence)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (Brady materiality assessed cumulatively; prosecutor’s duty to learn of favorable evidence in agents’ files)