Commonwealth v. Simpson, R., Aplt, 112 A.3d 1194

Background

In 1997 Rasheed Simpson was convicted of first-degree murder and related crimes for the 1993 kidnapping and execution-style killing of Andrew Haynes and sentenced to death; direct appeal affirmed.
Simpson filed a PCRA petition; this Court previously affirmed dismissal except remanded two ineffectiveness claims for further factfinding: (1) failure to impeach eyewitness Rasheema Washington with alleged motive/bias, and (2) failure to present witness Cameron Thompson.
On remand the PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing (Feb. 21, 2014); Washington, Thompson, and Simpson testified; trial counsel (Siegel) was deceased but his file notes were introduced.
Key factual disputes: whether Washington had a post‑relationship motive to lie (pregnancy, STI, threats) and whether Thompson could/was proffered as a defense witness to contradict Washington’s testimony (including rebuttal about Simpson’s presence in a car where police later found a gun).
The PCRA court credited Washington’s testimony and discredited Thompson and Simpson; it found counsel had reasonable bases for not confronting Washington or calling Thompson and that Simpson failed to show prejudice. The Supreme Court affirms the PCRA court’s denial of relief and rejects cumulative‑prejudice claim.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Simpson)	Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth)	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to impeach Rasheema Washington with alleged motive/bias (pregnancy, STI, threats).	Simpson: counsel knew of Washington’s alleged bias (sexual relationship, pregnancy, STI, threats) and failed to cross‑examine; this impeachment would have changed the verdict.	Commonwealth: Washington denied bias; counsel vigorously cross‑examined at trial; lack of extrinsic corroboration and other strong evidence of guilt make any impeachment unlikely to change outcome.	Denied. PCRA court credibility findings supported; counsel may have had reasonable bases not to pursue uncorroborated, potentially inflammatory impeachment; no reasonable probability of a different verdict.
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to present Cameron Thompson as a witness to impeach Washington’s bias.	Simpson: Thompson would have corroborated bias allegations and rebutted Washington’s testimony; counsel failed to investigate or subpoena him.	Commonwealth: Thompson’s testimony is unreliable/hearsay, he was never proffered to counsel, and trial counsel had no reason to know of or call him.	Denied. PCRA credited that Thompson was not proffered and his testimony was incredible; Simpson failed Pierce reasonable‑basis and prejudice prongs.
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to present Thompson to rebut Washington’s identification of Simpson at the Cheltenham Mall car with a gun.	Simpson: Thompson would have testified Simpson was not in the car; that would undermine Washington’s account of post‑murder events and diminish inculpatory evidence.	Commonwealth: Officer notes and Washington’s credible testimony supported Simpson’s presence; Thompson’s late, friendly testimony is unreliable; even if called, no reasonable likelihood of different result.	Denied. PCRA found Thompson and Simpson not credible; even if Thompson had testified, outcome likely unchanged.
Whether cumulative prejudice from multiple ineffectiveness claims warrants relief.	Simpson: Even if individual claims fail, their cumulative effect deprived him of a fair trial.	Commonwealth: Multiple failed claims cannot combine to create prejudice where none exists individually given the strong evidence of guilt.	Denied. Court holds cumulative‑prejudice doctrine inapplicable because the individual claims lacked prejudice and, cumulated, would not have altered the verdict.

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (sets two‑prong performance and prejudice standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Commonwealth v. Pierce, 515 Pa. 153 (establishes three‑prong Pierce test applying Strickland in Pennsylvania)
Commonwealth v. Rios, 591 Pa. 583 (ineffective assistance violates right when performance undermines truth‑determining process)
Commonwealth v. Spotz, 624 Pa. 4 (de novo review of ineffectiveness claims; defer to PCRA factual/credibility findings)
Commonwealth v. Singley, 582 Pa. 5 (presumption of counsel effectiveness and burden on petitioner)
Commonwealth v. Steele, 599 Pa. 341 (petitioner’s burden not reduced where trial counsel is deceased)
Commonwealth v. Bryant, 579 Pa. 119 (elements for relief when counsel fails to obtain a witness)
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 600 Pa. 329 (PCRA court credibility determinations merit deference)
Commonwealth v. Koehler, 614 Pa. 159 (cumulative prejudice analysis when individual deficiencies found)
Commonwealth v. Sepulveda, 618 Pa. 262 (multiple deficient acts may be cumulated for prejudice analysis)