Commonwealth v. Adams, 177 A.3d 359

Background

In August 2014 counterfeit $50 bills were passed at the Warren County Fair; Jordan Adams was charged with multiple forgery/theft-related counts and tried in June 2016. Co-defendant Christine Redding pleaded guilty to conspiracy and was subpoenaed to testify for the Commonwealth.
The police conducted polygraph-related interviews of Redding; Corporal Brian Zeybel recorded the polygraph interview and Trooper Jeffrey Osborne conducted a brief recorded interview immediately afterward. Those recordings were not disclosed to defense prior to or during the initial trial.
At trial defense counsel elicited on cross-exam that a recording might exist; when the recording surfaced the prosecutor conceded a Brady violation, the trial court declared a mistrial, and the jury was dismissed. The Commonwealth did not appeal the mistrial.
Adams moved to dismiss all charges on double jeopardy grounds, arguing prosecutorial misconduct (and that police misconduct should be imputed to the prosecutor) rose above gross negligence and warranted dismissal.
The trial court found a Brady violation and multiple instances of misconduct/gross negligence by prosecutor and police but concluded the errors were not intentional efforts to deprive Adams of a fair trial; it denied dismissal and precluded evidence of Redding’s plea at retrial.
On appeal the Superior Court affirmed: prosecutors and officers made serious errors and Zeybel’s practice of withholding non-inculpatory recordings was troubling, but the record did not show intent to subvert the process such that double jeopardy dismissal was required.

Issues

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Commonwealth's / DA's Argument	Held
Whether charges must be dismissed on double jeopardy grounds after a Brady violation caused a mistrial	Prosecutor and police conduct (withholding recorded interviews) was intentional or so more-than-grossly-negligent that retrial is barred	The recording’s nondisclosure resulted from police miscommunication and prosecutor negligence, not intentional misconduct; mistrial + sanctions suffice	Denied — no double jeopardy dismissal because record supports trial court’s finding of no intent to deprive a fair trial
Whether police misconduct can be imputed to prosecutor to justify dismissal	Yes — police are part of the Commonwealth and their intentional withholding should bar retrial	Police failures here were unintentional or negligent; prosecutor did not act in bad faith	Held that police misconduct can sometimes be imputed, but on these facts imputation did not require dismissal since intent was not shown
Whether Corporal Zeybel’s practice of only entering inculpatory recordings into evidence warranted dismissal	Zeybel intentionally withheld exculpatory/impeachment recordings and violated regulations; dismissal appropriate	Zeybel’s practice was improper but not shown to have intentionally targeted this defendant to deny a fair trial	Court: Zeybel’s admitted practice is troubling and intentional, but absent proof it was aimed at depriving Adams of a fair trial, dismissal is not appropriate
Appropriate remedy for Brady violation here	Dismissal of charges (double jeopardy)	Preclusion of certain evidence and retrial allowed	Court affirmed trial court’s lesser remedy (preclusion of Redding’s plea evidence) and permitted retrial

Key Cases Cited

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (suppression by prosecution of evidence favorable to accused violates due process)
Commonwealth v. Burke, 781 A.2d 1136 (Pa. 2001) (Brady obligations extend to exculpatory evidence within police files; negligence by police/prosecutor insufficient alone for dismissal)
Commonwealth v. Graham, 109 A.3d 733 (Pa. Super. 2014) (double jeopardy dismissal requires proof of prosecutorial intent to deprive fair trial; appellate standard explained)
Commonwealth v. Kearns, 70 A.3d 881 (Pa. Super. 2013) (dismissal for prosecutorial discovery violation linked to prosecutor’s intent to suppress)
Commonwealth v. Snyder, 963 A.2d 396 (Pa. 2009) (police duties to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence and Youngblood standard)
Lambert v. Commonwealth, 884 A.2d 848 (Pa. 2005) (Brady includes exculpatory impeachment evidence)
Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988) (favorable evidence destroyed negligently does not automatically violate due process absent bad faith)