Commonwealth v. Eichinger, J., Aplt
108 A.3d 821
| Pa. | 2014Background
- On March 25, 2005, John Eichinger murdered three people (Heather Greaves, Lisa Greaves, and Heather’s 3‑year‑old daughter Avery) and had previously murdered Jennifer Still in 1999; he made multiple written and oral inculpatory statements and journal entries.
- Eichinger waived a guilt‑phase jury, stipulated to the Commonwealth’s evidence at a consolidated bench trial, was found guilty of first‑degree murder, and a jury later returned three death sentences for the 2005 murders. This Court affirmed on direct appeal.
- The Federal Community Defender Office (FCDO) was appointed for federal habeas purposes and filed an amended PCRA petition raising many claims; the PCRA court held 22 days of evidentiary hearings and denied relief in a detailed opinion.
- Eichinger’s PCRA claims focused largely on alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel (various pretrial, guilt‑phase, and penalty‑phase failures), alleged constitutional defects in jury‑waiver colloquy and admission of statements, prosecutorial misconduct, and jury instruction errors.
- The PCRA court found Eichinger competent, rejected his mental‑health-based challenges, and concluded trial counsel’s strategic decisions had reasonable bases; the Supreme Court affirmed the denial of PCRA relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Eichinger) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of waiver of jury trial and stipulation to evidence | Waiver/ stipulation were not knowing, intelligent, voluntary; colloquy constitutionally insufficient | Thorough oral and written colloquy; Eichinger understood consequences and signed waiver; colloquy satisfied Pa. standards and the totality of circumstances shows voluntary choice | Waiver and stipulation valid; counsel not ineffective for failing to object |
| Admissibility/voluntariness of confessions; Sixth Amendment right to counsel | Statements after appearances before magistrates and in transit violated Sixth Amendment and Miranda waivers invalid due to mental impairment | Trial counsel litigated suppression; voluntariness already decided on direct appeal; PCRA record shows no disqualifying mental defect | No merit; counsel not ineffective regarding suppression; confessions admissible |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to investigate/present mental‑health mitigating evidence | Counsel failed to investigate mental health, mitigation, and social history; should have retained specialists and more experts | Counsel conducted reasonable investigation, interviewed witnesses, obtained records and experts; strategic choices reasonable; additional experts unlikely to change outcome given aggravators | No ineffective assistance—reasonable basis for counsel’s strategy and no prejudice |
| Prosecutorial misconduct and improper penalty‑phase argument on future dangerousness | Prosecutor improperly argued future dangerousness and urged non‑statutory aggravators; counsel ineffective for not objecting | Prosecutor’s rebuttal argument was permissible given defense evidence (opened door); arguments based on record; trial court instructions cured any possible confusion | No relief; comments within permissible bounds and not prejudicial in context |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 591 Pa. 1, 915 A.2d 1122 (Pa. 2007) (direct‑appeal opinion affirming convictions)
- Commonwealth v. Pierce, 515 Pa. 153, 527 A.2d 973 (Pa. 1987) (three‑prong test for ineffective assistance)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (performance and prejudice test for counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 612 Pa. 333, 30 A.3d 1111 (Pa. 2011) (standards for PCRA ineffective‑assistance review)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 592 Pa. 698, 927 A.2d 586 (Pa. 2007) (counsel not ineffective for failing to raise meritless claims)
- Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1994) (due process requires parole‑ineligibility instruction when future dangerousness is at issue)
- Commonwealth v. Marrero, 546 Pa. 596, 687 A.2d 1102 (Pa. 1996) (limitations on using future dangerousness as sole basis for death)
- Commonwealth v. Busanet, 618 Pa. 1, 54 A.3d 35 (Pa. 2012) (prosecutorial argument bounds and cumulative‑error discussion)
- Commonwealth v. Cam Ly, 602 Pa. 268, 980 A.2d 61 (Pa. 2009) (permissible scope of prosecutorial argument in sentencing)
- Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (U.S. 1978) (sentencer must be able to consider any proffered mitigating evidence)
- Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274 (U.S. 2004) (no nexus required between mitigating evidence and crime)
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1969) (requirements for accepting guilty pleas; protection of constitutional rights)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (U.S. 2003) (use of ABA guidelines as aid in assessing reasonableness of counsel’s investigation)