Commonwealth v. Reese
156 A.3d 1250
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Reese, a former Senior Supervisory Special Agent in the OAG, was convicted by bench of indirect criminal contempt for violating a protective order issued in 2014.
- Protective Order (Aug. 27, 2014) prohibited OAG employees from accessing information or engaging in actions that could obstruct or retaliate against Grand Jury witnesses; its scope and enforcement were detailed in orders and subsequent amendments.
- Grand Jury investigation related to the 2009 Mondesire matter leaked information to the press; Judge Carpenter oversaw the Special Prosecutor investigation and the protective order was designed to shield witnesses and the process.
- From Sept.–Dec. 2014, Reese allegedly conducted searches of the OAG’s eVault email archive system to obtain information prohibited by the order, including terms tied to the Grand Jury and specific individuals.
- At trial, Reese moved for recusal of Judge Carpenter; the court denied, and Reese was ultimately found guilty of indirect criminal contempt on Dec. 7, 2015, with sentencing on Mar. 3, 2016.
- Appellate issues: (1) recusal denial, (2) notice of the Protective Order, (3) wrongful intent for eVault searches, (4) lack of notice for the protective order before issuance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly denied recusal | Reese claimed Judge Carpenter was biased due to proximity to Kane matter and statements suggesting prejudice. | Carpenter could preside impartially; no actual prejudice shown; recusal improper absent demonstrable bias. | No abuse of discretion; recusal denied. |
| Whether Reese had notice of the Protective Order | No service or communication showing notice; no awareness of order terms. | Notice established by context, proximity to Kane, and access/control over eVault; awareness inferred. | Notice proven; sufficiency supported. |
| Whether Reese intentionally violated the Protective Order by eVault searches | Searches aimed at identifying leaks could be non-criminal; intent unclear. | Search terms and timing show deliberate targeting of Grand Jury information in violation of the order. | Evidence supports wrongful intent; conviction upheld. |
| Whether the Protective Order lacked proper notice to OAG prior to issuance | Order issued without opportunity to be heard; OAG affected by it. | Supreme Court previously affirmed order’s validity; permissive under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4954. | No reversible error; order valid as per higher court guidance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Kearney, 92 A.3d 51 (Pa. Super. 2014) (recusal standards; bias review confined to abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Harris, 979 A.2d 387 (Pa. Super. 2009) (judge’s impartiality; appearance of impropriety review)
- Commonwealth v. Debose, 833 A.2d 147 (Pa. Super. 2003) (running controversy; recusal necessity)
- Commonwealth v. Lambert, 147 A.3d 1221 (Pa. Super. 2016) (contumacious conduct; notice and intent in indirect contempt)
- Commonwealth v. Staton, 38 A.3d 785 (Pa. 2012) (evidence sufficiency; notice can be circumstantial)
- Commonwealth v. Tilghman, 673 A.2d 898 (Pa. 1996) (per curiam affirmance; law-of-the-case concept)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 137 A.3d 611 (Pa. Super. 2016) (sufficiency of evidence; circumstantial support)