Commonwealth, Aplt v. Williams, T.
168 A.3d 97
| Pa. | 2017Background
- In 1984 Terrance Williams and Marc Draper abducted and murdered Amos Norwood; Williams was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death in 1986. This Court affirmed the conviction on direct appeal in 1990.
- Williams pursued multiple collateral challenges (PCRA and federal habeas); a 1998 PCRA hearing developed significant mitigation evidence including allegations Williams had a sexual relationship with Norwood and a history of sexual abuse.
- In January–March 2012 Draper (and others via declarations) provided affidavits asserting prosecutors discouraged testimony that Norwood had sexual relationships with teenage boys; Williams filed a fourth, untimely PCRA petition in March 2012 asserting a Brady/governmental-interference claim and seeking a new penalty-phase.
- The PCRA court found the Commonwealth suppressed or “sanitized” files and statements (notes of prosecutor Foulkes, Mrs. Norwood’s statement, Rev. Poindexter’s statement) that would support that Norwood was an adult with sexual contact with teenage boys, and granted relief (vacating death sentence and ordering a new penalty hearing).
- The Commonwealth appealed; this Court initially vacated the PCRA court’s grant and reinstated the death sentence, but the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated that judgment, and remanded on due-process grounds, returning the matter to this Court for reconsideration.
- Justice Mundy (opinion in support of reversal) concludes Williams failed to satisfy the PCRA’s governmental-interference timeliness exception because the substance of the alleged exculpatory facts (Norwood’s sexual involvement with teenage boys) was known or discoverable long before 2012, citing trial testimony, the 1998 PCRA record, and prior federal review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Williams) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Williams’ 2012 PCRA petition meets the governmental-interference exception to the PCRA timeliness bar | Williams: Draper’s 2012 affidavits (and related files) revealed prosecutorial suppression or sanitization that prevented earlier presentation; petition filed within 60 days of discovery | Commonwealth: Williams already knew or could have discovered the same substance (Norwood’s sexual involvement with teenage boys) from trial and the 1998 PCRA record; he failed to exercise due diligence | Court (Mundy): Denied — Williams failed to prove governmental interference exception because the relevant facts were known or discoverable earlier |
| Whether the allegedly suppressed materials (Foulkes’ note, Mamie Norwood’s sanitized statement, Poindexter’s sanitized statement) were materially new or only cumulative | Williams: These files contained unique, undisclosed facts corroborating Norwood’s conduct and showing prosecutors suppressed evidence | Commonwealth: The materials were cumulative of allegations already presented at trial and in earlier collateral proceedings; not newly discoverable exculpatory facts | Court: Found them essentially cumulative; they would not satisfy the governmental-interference exception |
| Whether Williams timely filed within 60 days of discovering the exception-triggering evidence | Williams: Draper’s Jan 9, 2012 affidavit triggered the 60-day requirement; petition filed March 9, 2012 | Commonwealth: Even if Draper’s affidavit is new, prior records (and possibly earlier declarations) put Williams on notice earlier; due diligence lacking | Court: Independent of strict 60-day timing, held Williams lacked due diligence to show he couldn’t have discovered the claim earlier |
| Whether PCRA court had jurisdiction to reach the merits of Williams’ Brady claim | Williams: PCRA court had jurisdiction because governmental-interference exception satisfied | Commonwealth: No jurisdiction because petition untimely and no exception proven | Court: PCRA court lacked jurisdiction; its order granting a new penalty hearing should be vacated (per Justice Mundy’s view) |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Pennsylvania, 136 S. Ct. 1899 (2016) (U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated and remanded this Court’s prior judgment on due-process grounds)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 570 A.2d 75 (Pa. 1990) (direct appeal decision affirming conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 941 A.2d 1263 (Pa. 2008) (discussing governmental-interference exception and due-diligence requirement)
- Commonwealth v. Busanet, 54 A.3d 35 (Pa. 2012) (standard of review for PCRA factual and legal determinations)
- Commonwealth v. Cox, 146 A.3d 221 (Pa. 2016) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional; exceptions must be proven)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 54 A.3d 14 (Pa. 2012) (timeliness jurisdictional rule)
- Commonwealth v. Hackett, 956 A.2d 978 (Pa. 2008) (60-day filing requirement after discovery of exception-triggering facts)
- Commonwealth v. Morris, 822 A.2d 684 (Pa. 2003) (information available at trial cannot be later recast as governmental interference)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutorial duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)