Commonwealth v. Philistin, 53 A.3d 1

Appellant Bortela Philistin was convicted of first-degree murder and related offenses for shooting two Philadelphia police officers after a scuffle during a cocaine transport in 1993, resulting in Officer Hayes’s death and Officer Marynowitz’s permanent disability.
A jury sentenced Philistin to death based on two aggravating factors: victim was a police officer killed in the line of duty and grave risk of death to another; no mitigating circumstances were found.
Post-conviction relief was sought under the PCRA; the PCRA court denied relief and the Superior Court affirmed, with the issue-laden appeal proceeding to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
Philistin raised multiple claims, including jury selection, ineffective assistance of counsel, admission of victim impact and other evidence, coercion of the confession, right to testify, immigration status evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, mitigation investigation, and presence of uniformed police in the courtroom.
The Court rejects most claims under Strickland/Pierce analysis, upholding trial strategy and evidentiary rulings; the order denying collateral relief is affirmed.
Justice Sayl or files a dissent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jury selection of death-penalty opponents	Appellant argues two jurors were improperly excluded for general opposition to death penalty	Commonwealth asserts jurors showed irrevocable opposition and trial court did not abuse discretion	Claim rejected; no ineffective assistance; court did not abuse discretion
Self-defense/ diminished capacity defenses	Trial counsel should have pursued self-defense/imperfect self-defense and diminished capacity	Evidence did not establish ability to form specific intent; defenses inapplicable	No error; defenses unavailable; no ineffectiveness finding
Victim impact evidence in guilt phase	Admission of victim impact evidence biased the guilt phase	Evidence probative to rebut rogue-officer theory; closing argument not itself evidence	Evidence properly admitted; no ineffective assistance related to its use
Evidence of drug dealing and confession handling	Counsel should have challenged drugs evidence and coerced confession theories	Counsel reasonably highlighted exculpatory portions; no coercion shown	No ineffectiveness; trial strategy reasonable; confession voluntary
Right to testify at penalty phase and conflict findings	Counsel failed to advise right to testify; potential conflict claim	Record shows no failure to advise; conflict not proven; remand unnecessary	Claim rejected; right to testify not violated; no actionable conflict

Commonwealth v. Lesko, 609 Pa. 128 (Pa. 2011) (PCRA standard and prior-litigation analysis)
Commonwealth v. Pierce, 515 Pa. 153 (Pa. 1987) (test for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel)
Commonwealth v. McGill, 574 Pa. 574 (Pa. 2003) (layered ineffectiveness claims and appellate counsel)
Commonwealth v. Basemore, 560 Pa. 258 (Pa. 2000) (ineffectiveness; meritless claims)
Commonwealth v. Williams, 597 Pa. 109 (Pa. 2008) (mitigation investigation standards in capital cases)
Commonwealth v. Harrington, 131 S. Ct. 770 (S. Ct. 2011) (deferential standard for evaluating counsel’s performance)
Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 611 Pa. 280 (Pa. 2011) (defense of diminished capacity; specific intent requirement)
Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (U.S. 2011) (standard for evaluating Strickland claims)