Com. v. Risoldi, C.
Com. v. Risoldi, C. No. 2673 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 15, 2017Background
- The Pennsylvania Attorney General charged Claire, Sheila, Carl, Carla Risoldi, and others with a multi‑million dollar homeowners‑insurance fraud scheme arising from multiple fires at a Bucks County residence ("Clairemont").
- Because of local recusals, Chester County Judge Thomas G. Gavin was specially appointed to preside. The Commonwealth sought various pretrial remedies (bypass of preliminaries, disqualification of defense counsel, revocation of bail) and filed a recusal motion against Judge Gavin after several adverse rulings.
- Defendants filed habeas corpus petitions; Judge Gavin granted some petitions (dismissing charges as to Goldman and Holston) and denied most others. He also granted severance for Carla (joined by Carl and Sheila) from Claire and found Claire in indirect criminal contempt at a later hearing.
- The Commonwealth moved to recuse Judge Gavin, alleging bias based on: (1) his denial of disqualification of Claire’s counsel (McMahon); (2) alleged ex parte communications with Claire; (3) his handling of alleged witness intimidation by Claire; (4) his rulings on the habeas petitions; (5) his severance ruling; and (6) the cumulative effect of these actions.
- Judge Gavin issued a detailed Recusal Opinion and 1925(a) Opinion denying recusal. The Commonwealth appealed; the Superior Court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion and that the record supported the judge’s conclusions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Judge Gavin should be recused for bias in denying disqualification of Claire’s counsel (McMahon) | McMahon had a conflict and made intimidating "snitches get stitches" remark; court minimized these facts and ignored conflict risk | Judge Gavin considered and rejected disqualification after reviewing record and law | Denial of recusal affirmed; no demonstrated bias or appearance of impropriety |
| Whether alleged ex parte communications between Claire and the judge required recusal | Claire told the judge she lacked counsel and funds; that contact made the judge a potential fact witness and required disclosure under Canon 2.9 | Judge Gavin found no prohibited ex parte communication or prejudice and explained record circumstances | Denial of recusal affirmed; no improper ex parte communication or bias |
| Whether the judge abdicated duty to protect witnesses and downplayed intimidation by Claire | Court repeatedly minimized alleged intimidation and failed to hold Claire accountable, creating appearance of favoritism | Judge Gavin analyzed the incidents, applied law, and concluded they did not show bias or require recusal | Denial of recusal affirmed; handling did not show bias or appearance of impropriety |
| Whether rulings on habeas petitions, severance, and other procedural decisions show bias (including cumulative effect) | Judge made factual errors, failed to review transcripts/exhibits, made credibility findings, and sua sponte severance harmed prosecution — cumulatively showing bias | Judge Gavin provided reasoned opinions; adverse rulings alone do not prove bias; cumulative claims do not establish recusal when individual claims lack merit | Denial of recusal affirmed; judge articulated supported reasoning and no abuse of discretion shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Kearney, 92 A.3d 51 (Pa. Super. 2014) (presumption that judges are impartial; recusal standard and burden)
- Commonwealth v. Abu‑Jamal, 720 A.2d 79 (Pa. 1998) (adverse rulings alone do not establish bias)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 615 A.2d 716 (Pa. 1992) (multiple failed claims cannot attain merit simply by aggregation)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 966 A.2d 523 (Pa. 2009) (cumulation doctrine for multiple deficient acts)
- Commonwealth v. Rhodes, 990 A.2d 732 (Pa. Super. 2009) (appearance of impropriety may arise from cumulative comments/conduct)
- Mahonski v. Engel, 145 A.3d 175 (Pa. Super. 2016) (Rule 1925(b) considerations; court may still reach merits when appellate practice rules met)
- Kanter v. Epstein, 866 A.2d 394 (Pa. Super. 2004) (excessive, non‑concise Rule 1925(b) statements can impede opinion preparation and risk waiver)