Commonwealth v. McClure
172 A.3d 668
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- In 2014 Jalene McClure was convicted of assault and child-endangerment for injuries to an infant at her daycare; this Court vacated that conviction on unrelated grounds and remanded for retrial in 2016.
- After trial McClure alleged ex parte communications and close social relationships between trial judge Bradley P. Lunsford and Centre County prosecutors (DA Stacy Parks Miller, ADAs Nathan Boob and Lindsay Foster), supported by phone records showing numerous text messages during the period surrounding the trial.
- McClure sought subpoenas requiring retired Judge Lunsford to produce text-message records and to testify about communications with prosecutors; Lunsford moved to quash. The trial court denied the first motion (11/21/16) and later denied a second motion (12/9/16).
- Lunsford appealed the denials; while those appeals were pending the trial court denied McClure’s motion to preclude retrial on double-jeopardy/due-process grounds (12/22/16). This Court consolidated and reviewed the matters.
- The Superior Court: affirmed the denial of quash to the extent it required non-privileged evidence (e.g., existence/content of ex parte communications); held judicial deliberative-process privilege bars compelled testimony about a judge’s mental processes/reasons for rulings; found the privilege absolute and not waived by Lunsford; vacated the trial court’s 12/9/16 and 12/22/16 orders for lack of jurisdiction under Pa.R.A.P. 1701 because Lunsford’s pending appeal divested the trial court of power to decide overlapping issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether subpoenas to retired Judge Lunsford to produce texts and testify are enforceable | McClure: subpoenas seek non-privileged evidence of ex parte communications essential to prove prosecutorial/judicial misconduct | Lunsford: compelled testimony would intrude on judicial immunity/deliberative-process privilege and mental processes | Court: subpoenas may be enforced to obtain non-privileged evidence (existence/content of ex parte communications); inquiry into judge’s deliberative process or reasons for rulings is barred by absolute privilege |
| Scope and nature of the judicial deliberative-process privilege | McClure: privilege should not shield evidence of improper external influences; exception for extraordinary cases | Lunsford: privilege and judicial immunity bar compelled testimony; protect finality and independence of judicial decision-making | Court: privilege protects confidential deliberative mental processes absolutely (not qualified); does not protect extrinsic ex parte communications |
| Whether Lunsford waived the privilege by discussing texts in his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion | McClure: Lunsford’s statements in 1925(a) waived the privilege | Lunsford: he did not disclose deliberative matters; statements addressed only non-privileged facts | Court: no waiver — statements did not reveal deliberative mental processes; privilege remains intact for protected matters |
| Whether trial court could decide McClure’s double-jeopardy/preclusion motion while Lunsford’s appeal of subpoenas was pending | McClure: trial court could rule on double-jeopardy independently | Commonwealth/appeals: pending appellate review of subpoena privilege divested trial court under Pa.R.A.P. 1701 | Court: trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter 12/9/16 and 12/22/16 orders because issues were intertwined with the pending appeal; those orders vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Leber v. Stretton, 928 A.2d 262 (Pa. Super. 2007) (recognizing judicial deliberative-process privilege and bar on compelling judges to testify about mental processes)
- Commonwealth v. Vartan, 733 A.2d 1258 (Pa. 1999) (plurality applying deliberative-process privilege to shield judicial communications)
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Ry. Co. v. Babcock, 204 U.S. 585 (U.S. 1907) (historic authority barring inquiry into decisionmakers’ mental processes)
- United States v. Morgan, 313 U.S. 409 (U.S. 1941) (development of the deliberative process rationale)
- In re Enforcement of Subpoena, 972 N.E.2d 1022 (Mass. 2012) (deliberative-process privilege does not bar discovery into whether a judge was subjected to improper extraneous influences)