Commonwealth v. Harrell, 65 A.3d 420

Harrell was convicted after a 10-day trial of two counts of first-degree murder and related offenses, receiving consecutive life sentences plus firearms penalties.
Police responded to a January 18, 2008 shooting at a Fairmount Avenue residence; two victims died and Harrell was identified by eyewitness Baney as the shooter.
A K-9 tracking operation led to Harrell’s arrest on the porch of the residence; a protective sweep uncovered a blood-stained tub, clothing, and other items.
A 9:44–12:30 p.m. interview with Harrell included a recorded Miranda warning and a written statement; Harrell ultimately confessed after confrontation with the investigators.
DNA analysis on shell casings showed a high but not definitive match to Harrell; other potential suspects were ruled out.
The defense challenged: (a) the lack of recording the interrogation, (b) admission of Dr. Ofshe’s false-confession testimony, (c) disclosure of defense witnesses’ statements, (d) suppression of statements as involuntary, (e) suppression of physical evidence, (f) lack of counsel at the lineup; the court denied these challenges, and Harrell appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failure to record interrogation violated due process	Harrell argues due process requires recording to challenge voluntariness	Commonwealth contends no recording requirement under state law	No recording required; no due process violation
Whether Dr. Ofshe’s false-confession testimony was admissible	Ofshe testimony needed to explain false confessions	Frye standard and trial court discretion limit admissibility	Not admissible; trial court did not abuse discretion
Whether the defense witnesses’ statements must be disclosed	Brinkley/Perez require broad defense statements disclosure	Disclosures limited to signed/substantively verbatim statements	Court acted within established law; not improper
Whether Harrell’s statements to police were involuntary	Statement was coerced; rights not knowingly waived	Totality of circumstances supports voluntariness	Waiver voluntary; statements admissible
Whether initial warrantless entry invalidated subsequent warrants	Warrantless sweep tainted later searches; lacking probable cause	Protective sweep justified; warrants supported independently	Warrantless entry justified; warrants independent of initial entry
Whether there was a constitutional right to counsel at the photo lineup	Right to counsel attaches during lineup	No right to counsel when arrest for parole violation prior to charges	No right to counsel at lineup; independent in-court identification supported

Commonwealth v. Craft, 447 Pa. Super. 371 (Pa. Super. 1995) (recording not constitutionally required; Frye/Topa considerations cited)
Commonwealth v. Brinkley, 505 Pa. 442, 480 A.2d 980 (Pa. 1984) (work product/disclosure of witness statements; doctrine analyzed)
Commonwealth v. Perez, 698 A.2d 640 (Pa. Super. 1997) (limits reciprocal discovery rights for defense statements)
Grady v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 576 Pa. 546, 839 A.2d 1038 (Pa. 2003) (standard for admissibility of expert testimony; Frye preferred over Daubert)
Commonwealth v. Szakal, 50 A.3d 210 (Pa. Super. 2012) (admissibility of expert testimony on false confessions; general acceptance analysis)
Commonwealth v. Nester, 551 Pa. 157, 709 A.2d 879 (Pa. 1998) (voluntariness test for confessions; totality of circumstances)