Commonwealth v. Orie
22 A.3d 1021
| Pa. | 2011Background
- Orie, a Pennsylvania State Senator, was charged with multiple counts of theft, conflict of interest, criminal conspiracy, and tampering with or fabricating evidence in Allegheny County.
- During deliberations, the Commonwealth alleged forged defense exhibits and the court declared a mistrial after evidence of forgery was examined.
- Orie moved to bar retrial on double jeopardy grounds, to dismiss with prejudice, and for various recusals and investigations; the trial court denied these motions, deeming the double jeopardy claim frivolous.
- The Superior Court denied relief and treated Orie’s appeal as a petition for review; the trial court continued retrial planning for October 2011.
- Orie filed a petition for review in this Court, seeking pretrial review of the trial court’s frivolous finding, invoking Brady stay review and related procedures.
- This Court granted the petition for review in part, reorganized the Brady framework, and remanded to the Superior Court to address the underlying merits of the frivolousness finding while permitting expedited handling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper procedure for reviewing a frivolous double jeopardy finding | Orie seeks pretrial review under Brady stay framework as of right | State argues Brady stay review is the proper, narrow pretrial mechanism via specific appellate path | Brady stay review framework adopted and applied via petition for review |
| Which court has initial jurisdiction for Brady-style stay review | Orie contends Superior Court has jurisdiction under Brady stay | Commonwealth contends review should proceed in this Court or as a Bolden direct appeal | Superior Court assigned stay-review pathway via petition for review; remanded for merits review |
| Whether the stay process can be used where no immediate retrial deadline exists | Stay review appropriate to test frivolousness before retrial | Stay review not needed when retrial is not imminent and underlying merits are pending | Stay review permissible through Brady framework with expedition required; remand to assess frivolousness merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Bolden, 472 Pa. 602 (Pa. 1977) (pretrial double jeopardy appeals are final orders for purposes of appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Haefner, 473 Pa. 154 (Pa. 1977) (Bolden principle affirmed; pretrial orders denying DJ claims are final)
- Commonwealth v. Brady, 508 A.2d 286 (Pa. 1986) (frivolous pretrial DJ findings bar Bolden appeals; allows stay-review pathway)
- Commonwealth v. Learn, 356 Pa. Super. 382 (Pa. Super. 1986) (interpreted Brady stay procedure; stay requests to be made to this Court)
- Commonwealth v. Gains, 383 Pa. Super. 208 (Pa. Super. 1989) (overruled Learn’s remand notion; clarifies procedure after Brady)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 361 Pa. Super. 501 (Pa. Super. 1987) (followed Learn; quashing appeal when no pending stay under Brady)
- Commonwealth v. Green, 946 A.2d 642 (Pa. 2008) (dissent addressing Brady stay framework and review scope)