Com. v. Pratt, J., 2291 EDA 2016

Dec. 23, 2006: A pizza deliveryman (Michael Orlando) was shot and later died after delivering to an address called in by a co-defendant’s girlfriend; Pratt was arrested and tried for related offenses.
At trial Pratt presented an alibi and called witnesses; the Commonwealth’s witness Melissa Thompson (a co-defendant’s girlfriend) testified and had pleaded guilty to conspiracy in exchange for testifying.
Jury convicted Pratt of second-degree murder, conspiracy, and robbery; he received life without parole plus concurrent terms. Direct appeal and Supreme Court review were unsuccessful.
Pratt filed a timely first PCRA petition alleging trial counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to procure character witnesses to show Pratt’s non‑violent reputation and (2) failing to request an accomplice/corrupt‑source jury instruction regarding Thompson.
At the PCRA evidentiary hearing trial counsel testified he intentionally omitted character witnesses to avoid impeachment on Pratt’s prior juvenile adjudications and declined the corrupt‑source instruction because he viewed Thompson’s testimony as exculpatory. The PCRA court denied relief; the Superior Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Pratt)	Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / Trial Counsel)	Held
Was counsel ineffective for not calling character witnesses showing Pratt was peaceful/non‑violent?	Failure to investigate/procure character witnesses deprived Pratt of favorable reputation evidence and had arguable merit.	Counsel had a reasonable strategic basis: calling character witnesses would invite cross‑examination about Pratt’s prior adjudications and be more harmful than helpful.	Denied — counsel had a reasonable strategy; no ineffectiveness.
Was counsel ineffective for not requesting a corrupt‑source/accomplice cautionary jury instruction for Melissa Thompson?	Thompson was an admitted participant; a corrupt‑source instruction was warranted and counsel’s failure was unreasonable.	Counsel reasonably declined the instruction because he considered Thompson’s testimony exculpatory and did not want to undermine it.	Denied — counsel reasonably chose not to request the instruction; no ineffectiveness.

Commonwealth v. Koehler, 36 A.3d 121 (Pa. 2012) (sets standards for proving ineffective assistance under PCRA)
Commonwealth v. Pierce, 645 A.2d 189 (Pa. 1994) (three‑prong test for ineffective assistance: arguable merit, no reasonable basis, prejudice)
Commonwealth v. Van Horn, 797 A.2d 983 (Pa. Super. 2002) (reasonable strategy can justify omitting character witnesses to avoid impeachment)
Commonwealth v. Morales, 701 A.2d 516 (Pa. 1997) (strategy to avoid exposing character witnesses to impeachment is reasonable)
Commonwealth v. Busanet, 54 A.3d 35 (Pa. 2012) (accomplice testimony/corrupt‑source instruction warranted only when evidence creates a jury question)
Commonwealth v. Payne, 794 A.2d 902 (Pa. Super. 2002) (discusses ineffective assistance standards)
Commonwealth v. Michaud, 70 A.3d 862 (Pa. Super. 2013) (requirements for claims based on failure to call witnesses)
Commonwealth v. Andrews, 158 A.3d 1260 (Pa. Super. 2017) (appellate review scope for PCRA orders)
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 437 A.2d 1175 (Pa. 1981) (attorney may reasonably avoid requesting instructions inconsistent with defense theory)