Commonwealth v. Birdsong
24 A.3d 319
| Pa. | 2011Background
- Birdsong convicted of two first-degree murders, six aggravated assaults, rape and related offenses after bench trial; sentenced to death plus 52.5–105 years on other counts.
- PCRA petitioner, represented by new counsel, pursued multiple rounds of post-conviction relief with remands for a proper opinion and Atkins/Miller claim proceeding.
- PCRA court dismissed grounds as meritless; Pennsylvania Supreme Court remanded for credibility findings under Miller framework.
- Breadth of issues includes Brady violations, trial/appeal ineffectiveness, venue/recusal, jury waivers at guilt and penalty phases, and mitigation strategy.
- Appellant withdrew Atkins claim during the 2008 remand; remaining issues reviewed on the merits with focus on claims for relief under 42 Pa.C.S. §9543(a).
- Concluding analysis affirms PCRA court’s denial of relief; no entitlement to collateral relief is found.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady violation materiality | Birdsong contends suppressed Kinard immunity, witness protection, surveillance, and semen tests. | Commonwealth argues not material; credibility issues render Kinard recantation unreliable. | No material Brady violation; evidence not likely to change outcome. |
| Layered ineffective assistance claims | Birdsong asserts appellate counsel failed to pursue underlying trial counsel ineffectiveness. | McGill/Rush framework requires layered showing; claims lack prejudice. | Layered ineffectiveness claims rejected; no remand needed. |
| Penalty-phase jury waiver validity | Waiver colloquy insufficient; argued confusing linkage of guilt/penalty waivers. | Mallory standard requires totality-of-circumstances; waiver was knowing and voluntary. | Waiver valid; no reversible error. |
| Severance vs. joint trial | Antagonistic defenses raised concern about prejudice from joint trial with brother. | Joint trials favored; no real potential prejudice shown. | Joint trial upheld; severance not required. |
| Use of juvenile adjudications as aggravator | Appellant challenged use of juvenile adjudications as §9711(d)(9) aggravator. | Act at time allowed juvenile adjudications to be admissible as convictions for capital sentencing. | Adjudications admissible; no reversible error; not violative of due process/ex post facto. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Chambers, 570 Pa. 3, 807 A.2d 872 (Pa. 2002) (materiality standard for Brady evidence; suppression must be material)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 585 Pa. 144, 888 A.2d 624 (Pa. 2005) (defines Atkins/Miller framework for mental retardation claims)
- Commonwealth v. Mallory, 596 Pa. 172, 941 A.2d 686 (Pa. 2008) (jury waiver analysis; totality-of-circumstances approach for counsel ineffectiveness claims)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 120 S. Ct. 1495, 146 L. Ed. 2d 389 (U.S. 2000) ( Strickland-based mitigation investigation requirement)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 123 S. Ct. 2527, 156 L. Ed. 2d /status (U.S. 2003) (requires thorough mitigation investigation; later case law applied to capital cases)
- Commonwealth v. Baker, 531 Pa. 541, 614 A.2d 663 (Pa. 1992) (admissibility of juvenile adjudications as convictions for capital sentencing)