Commonwealth v. Laird
632 Pa. 332
Pa.2015Background
- In December 1987 Appellant (Laird) and co-defendant Chester killed Anthony Milano; Appellant later stipulated participation but contested specific intent at retrial. Appellant disposed of physical evidence and made post-offense statements advising concealment.
- Appellant's first-degree murder conviction and death sentence were vacated on federal habeas; he was retried in 2007, convicted of first-degree murder and again sentenced to death. Retrial focused on whether Appellant had specific intent to kill given heavy intoxication and claimed brain injury.
- Defense employed a diminished-capacity defense: multiple experts (neuropsychologist and psychiatrists, plus a toxicologist) testified Appellant had extreme intoxication (BAC ~0.45) and brain/psychological impairments that impaired specific intent and produced confabulation.
- Appellant filed a PCRA petition asserting multiple ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims (failure to renew venue motion, impeachment of witnesses about alcohol, objections to bad‑acts and victim-impact evidence, preparation of experts and introduction of medical records, and incomplete mitigation presentation).
- The PCRA court held evidentiary hearings, denied relief, and this appeal affirms that denial: most claims lacked arguable merit or failed the Strickland performance/prejudice analysis; cumulative-error claim also failed.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's / Trial Counsel's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to renew change-of-venue | Publicity (two local articles referencing prior conviction/retrial) saturated Bucks County and biased jurors; counsel should have renewed motion | Only limited, non-sensational publicity; voir dire excused exposed jurors; seated jurors said they could be impartial | No presumptive or actual prejudice; claim lacks arguable merit; counsel not ineffective |
| Failure to better impeach witnesses about alcohol consumption | Counsel could have used earlier statements/reports to show Appellant drank even more and emphasize blackout; omissions prejudiced diminished-capacity defense | Trial elicited extensive alcohol evidence; toxicologist gave BAC ~0.45; additional impeachment would be cumulative/speculative | No deficient performance or prejudice; counsel’s cross-examination adequate |
| Failure to object to "other bad acts" evidence & request mistrial (minor sexual remark; giving alcohol to a child) | Such testimony was character‑damaging and irrelevant to specific intent/penalty | Testimony was isolated, largely excluded when objected to, and not emphasized by Commonwealth; would not change outcome | No prejudice; counsel not ineffective for tactical choice |
| Failure to prepare and deploy experts / introduce medical records | Counsel met experts late and did not secure medical records to corroborate head injuries; experts could have been stronger if better prepared or records admitted | Experts relied on prior extensive testing/interviews and supported diminished-capacity; records likely inadmissible/authentication problems and largely cumulative | No arguable merit; additional preparation/records would not likely change result |
| Inadequate mitigation presentation (penalty phase) | Counsel presented abbreviated testimony versus 1997 PCRA; failed to call specialized expert on male sexual abuse (Dr. Lisak) and other detail | Guilt‑phase experts’ testimony incorporated; penalty phase included detailed testimony by Drs. Dee and Fox and brother; jurors found multiple statutory mitigators | Performance not deficient; mitigation was substantial and cumulative additional detail unlikely to alter balancing |
| Victim-impact / improper prosecutor argument and Eighth/Due Process claims | Guilt-phase testimony and prosecutor references created victim-impact evidence and denied Appellant opportunity to rebut; court’s curative instruction insufficient | Most challenged testimony was background/chronology or life-in-being, not victim-impact; prosecutor’s remarks were brief, permissible advocacy; defense objected and court gave curative instruction | No Gardner or Eighth Amendment violation; counsel’s failure to object did not prejudice outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Chester, 526 Pa. 578 (state appellate decision affirming original convictions and sentences) (background precedent in case history)
- Commonwealth v. Laird, 605 Pa. 137 (Pa. 2010) (direct-appeal opinion addressing many trial and instructional issues)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong standard for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
- Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (U.S. 2010) (presumed-prejudice for juror exposure attends only extreme cases of publicity)
- Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (U.S. 1961) (jurors need not be totally ignorant; fairness inquiry focuses on ability to set aside impressions)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (U.S. 2003) (ineffective-assistance precedent on penalty-phase investigation and mitigation)
- Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349 (U.S. 1977) (due process requires opportunity to deny or explain information used to impose death)
- Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 (U.S. 1985) (prosecutorial comments cannot mislead jury about responsibility for death penalty)
- Commonwealth v. Karenbauer, 552 Pa. 420 (Pa. 1998) (change-of-venue and pretrial publicity standards)
- Commonwealth v. McNeil, 545 Pa. 42 (Pa. 1996) (victim-impact testimony preclusion and prejudice analysis)
- Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (U.S. 1991) (permitting victim-impact evidence in capital sentencing under applicable law)