Commonwealth v. Brown, 141 A.3d 491

Background

On March 15, 2001 Officer James Naim was shot and killed; Jamie Brown was convicted of third-degree murder in 2002 and sentenced to 20–40 years. Direct appeals and two prior PCRA petitions were denied.
Brown filed a third pro se PCRA petition (June 7, 2013), later amended, alleging among other things Brady violations and newly discovered evidence (two affidavits: White and Brown) and seeking disqualification of the Office of Attorney General (OAG) and judicial recusal.
White’s April 17, 2013 affidavit alleges the existence of wiretap recordings that reference the murder; Brown obtained transcripts from White’s 2003 proceedings and later attached them in a supplement.
Brown’s August 17, 2013 affidavit (from Anthony Brown) recounts an alleged out‑of‑court confession by another officer. The PCRA court found the petition untimely and dismissed it; it denied Brown’s motions to disqualify the OAG and for recusal and declined to rule on limited discovery.
The Superior Court reviewed (de novo where appropriate) timeliness and exceptions to the PCRA one‑year timing rule, and addressed whether the newly‑discovered fact exception applied to the White wiretap materials and to Brown’s affidavit.

Issues

Issue	Brown's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
1) Should the OAG be disqualified from prosecuting the PCRA because Brown alleges Brady violations by OAG attorneys?	OAG has a personal interest in defeating Brown’s Brady claim; whole office must be disqualified.	Disqualification is individual, not vicarious; no showing the specific OAG lawyer had a conflict; claim waived under procedural rules if not raised earlier.	Denial of disqualification affirmed: individual disqualification rule applies; Brown did not show the representing OAG attorney had a conflict, and the Commonwealth‑Act challenge was waived.
2) Should the PCRA judge be recused for bias?	Prior adverse rulings, comments at sentencing, and alleged personal knowledge demonstrate bias and appearance of impropriety.	Adverse rulings and sentencing remarks are not proof of bias; no record evidence of improper conduct by judge.	Denial of recusal affirmed: no record support for bias; adverse rulings alone insufficient.
3) Is Brown’s petition timely via the newly‑discovered‑fact exception based on Brown’s own affidavit recounting a confession by another officer?	Brown claims Anthony Brown’s affidavit is newly discovered and shows another committed the murder.	Affidavit is inadmissible hearsay (and not shown to meet statement‑against‑interest/unavailability), and Brown failed to exercise due diligence.	Petition claims tied to Anthony Brown’s affidavit are untimely and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
4) Is Brown’s petition timely via the newly‑discovered‑fact exception based on White’s affidavit and resulting wiretap tapes/transcripts?	White’s affidavit led Brown to obtain trial transcripts showing wiretap tapes referencing the murder; those recordings could be admissible and would be Brady material; Brown filed within 60 days of discovering White’s affidavit.	Record insufficient to show admissibility, newness, or due diligence; Commonwealth contends materials are merely a new conduit or public record.	Dismissal vacated as to the White/wiretap claims and remanded: Superior Court finds a genuine issue of material fact about whether recordings exist, are admissible, and whether Brown exercised due diligence; an evidentiary hearing and counsel appointment are required.
5) Did the PCRA court err by not ruling on Brown’s request for limited discovery?	Limited discovery is needed to obtain the wiretap materials relevant to jurisdiction and Brady claims.	Discovery unnecessary if petition is untimely and jurisdiction lacking.	Issue not ripe: court left discovery decision to PCRA court after jurisdictional determination.

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Ford, 122 A.3d 414 (Pa. Super. 2015) (individual disqualification is the general rule for prosecutorial conflicts)
Commonwealth v. Eskridge, 604 A.2d 700 (Pa. 1992) (chief prosecutor’s conflict may bar entire office)
Commonwealth v. Yarris, 731 A.2d 581 (Pa. 1999) (hearsay‑only affidavits claiming another committed the crime do not satisfy newly‑discovered‑fact exception)
Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (newly‑discovered‑fact exception requires facts were unknown and could not have been learned with due diligence)
Commonwealth v. Castro, 93 A.3d 818 (Pa. 2014) (media or out‑of‑court allegations are not themselves newly discovered facts)
Commonwealth v. Burton, 121 A.3d 1063 (Pa. Super. 2015) (due diligence standard for pro se petitioners and access to public records)
Commonwealth v. Medina, 92 A.3d 1210 (Pa. Super. 2014) (witness recantation can be newly discovered; due diligence assessed by circumstances)
Commonwealth v. Boyd, 835 A.2d 812 (Pa. Super. 2003) (PCRA court’s consideration of supplemental filings may constitute implicit leave to amend)