Com. v. Johnson, R.
954 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 7, 2016Background
- October 29, 2000: Two brothers (Juan and Jose Perez) were shot near Dorian Court Apartments in Chester; both died from single gunshot wounds. Eyewitnesses (Craig Gibson, Shante Powell) identified Raheem Johnson as the shooter; another witness (Brian Doukas) testified Johnson admitted the killings in prison.
- At trial Johnson was convicted (two counts of first-degree murder, among other offenses) and received consecutive life sentences; this Court affirmed and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied review.
- Johnson filed a timely PCRA petition raising Brady and multiple ineffective-assistance claims (trial and appellate counsel). Following remand and appointment of new counsel, an amended PCRA petition was heard; the PCRA court denied relief and Johnson appealed pro se.
- Key factual dispute at PCRA: whether the Commonwealth suppressed or failed to disclose the nature/scope of an arrangement with witness Craig Gibson (i.e., that prosecution would inform Gibson’s sentencing judge of his cooperation).
- Other contested issues: whether trial counsel ineffectively failed to (a) object to allegedly improper prosecutorial closing argument, (b) obtain/use impeachment evidence as to Gibson, Doukas, and Powell, and (c) preserve a continuance claim on appeal after the trial court denied a last-minute request to retain private counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady suppression of witness-sentence deal (Gibson) | Johnson: Commonwealth concealed an arrangement giving Gibson favorable sentencing treatment, which was material impeachment evidence | Commonwealth: Gibson testified the Commonwealth would only inform the sentencing judge of his cooperation and made no sentencing promise; Johnson knew Gibson testified for the Commonwealth | Court: No Brady violation — no suppression; jury knew Gibson’s cooperation and potential bias; prosecutor made no specific sentencing promise |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to object to prosecutor's closing (vouching / facts outside record) | Johnson: Counsel should have objected when prosecutor vouched for witnesses and referenced facts not in evidence | Commonwealth: Prosecutor’s remarks were fair responses to defense attacks on witness credibility and supported by trial record | Court: No ineffective assistance — comments were permissible response to defense and supported by evidence |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to obtain/use impeachment evidence (Gibson, Doukas, Powell) | Johnson: Counsel failed to investigate/impeach witnesses (e.g., incarceration records undermining Gibson’s “saw daily” claim; prison layout/timing undermining Doukas; Powell’s alleged bias) | Commonwealth: Counsel impeached witnesses by other means; inconsistencies were minor or already explored; evidence would not likely change outcome | Court: No ineffective assistance — counsel impeached by other effective means and alleged additional impeachment was inconsequential to result |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to raise continuance denial on direct appeal | Johnson: Trial court abused discretion in denying a 24-hour continuance to retain privately paid counsel; appellate counsel should have preserved it | Commonwealth: Request was made at trial day; Johnson waited until last minute; appointed counsel was prepared and accepted | Court: No merit — denial proper under balancing of interest and precedent; appellate counsel not ineffective for failing to raise it |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (establishes prosecution's duty to disclose favorable, material evidence)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (impeachment evidence affecting witness credibility is material under Brady)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (prosecutor must disclose evidence favorable to accused that is material)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (materiality standard: reasonable probability of different result)
- United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (mere possibility that undisclosed info might help defense is insufficient for materiality)
- Commonwealth v. Cam Ly, 980 A.2d 61 (Pa. 2009) (Brady/Giglio principles and materiality in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Gibson, 951 A.2d 1110 (Pa. 2008) (Burden and standards for Brady claims in Pennsylvania)