Commonwealth v. Santos
176 A.3d 877
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Police conducted multiple controlled buys and surveillance at 3205/3207 Rorer St.; Officer Stephen Dmytryk was the Commonwealth’s sole witness at the preliminary hearing and participated in the buys and subsequent arrest of Santos.
- Appellee Santos sought discovery about a federal indictment charging six Philly officers; paragraph 87 referenced an officer initials “S.D.” alleged to have falsified a 2011 police report—Santos sought documents relating to that allegation and any investigations of Officer Dmytryk.
- The City/PPD produced several internal-investigation files but said federal grand jury materials were held by the FBI/U.S. Attorney and not in PPD possession; the U.S. Attorney invoked grand jury secrecy under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6.
- The trial court ordered the City to request the FBI file; Sergeant Deacon (deputized to an FBI task force) testified he could not disclose grand jury materials; the court nevertheless sanctioned the Commonwealth orally and later in a written order by precluding Officer Dmytryk from testifying.
- The Commonwealth filed an interlocutory appeal arguing the trial court erred in barring Dmytryk because the disputed materials were in exclusive federal control and thus beyond the Commonwealth’s possession or Brady obligations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the requested FBI/grand-jury materials were mandatory discovery under Pa.R.Crim.P. 573(B)(1)(a) | Santos: materials could impeach Dmytryk and thus are mandatory Brady/discovery; court should compel production | Commonwealth: Santos failed to identify specific material; materials were not in Commonwealth/PPD possession or control | Court of Superior reversed trial court: Santos failed to show specific, material evidence and rule 573 obligation not met |
| Whether the Commonwealth violated Brady by withholding federal grand-jury materials | Santos: withholding grand-jury/federal files that could impeach Dmytryk violated Brady | Commonwealth: Brady duty does not extend to evidence exclusively held by federal authorities; it disclosed all it controlled | Held for Commonwealth: Brady does not require production of materials exclusively in federal control; trial court erred in finding Brady violation |
| Whether precluding Dmytryk from testifying was an appropriate sanction | Santos: exclusion appropriate remedy for discovery/Brady violation | Commonwealth: exclusion is abuse of discretion because it punished Commonwealth for lack of access to federal materials and speculation | Held: exclusion was erroneous as a matter of law; order reversed and case remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Cain, 565 U.S. 73 (U.S. 2012) (Brady rule statement regarding favorable evidence material to guilt or punishment)
- Commonwealth v. Roney, 79 A.3d 595 (Pa. 2013) (Brady obligations do not extend to evidence exclusively in federal possession)
- Commonwealth v. Simpson, 66 A.3d 253 (Pa. 2013) (prosecutor not responsible under Brady for information held by federal authorities)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 987 A.2d 638 (Pa. 2009) (mere possibility that undisclosed information might help defense does not establish constitutional materiality)
- Commonwealth v. Lambert, 884 A.2d 848 (Pa. 2005) (summarizing Brady jurisprudence)
- Commonwealth v. Weiss, 81 A.3d 767 (Pa. 2013) (Brady elements and prosecutor’s duty to learn favorable evidence known to government agents)