Commonwealth v. Treiber, S., Aplt
121 A.3d 435
| Pa. | 2015Background
- In March 2001 Treiber’s house burned; his two-year-old daughter died. He was convicted of first‑degree murder, arson, and related offenses; jury recommended death; this Court affirmed on direct appeal.
- Critical Commonwealth evidence was canine DNA from a hair embedded in glue on a threatening note allegedly placed by Treiber weeks before the fire; experts (Halverson and Basten) testified to a strong statistical match to Treiber’s dog.
- Trial counsel (Lucas/George) did not file a Frye challenge to the canine‑DNA methodology, did not call a defense DNA expert, and largely conceded the DNA match while arguing contamination.
- On PCRA review Treiber argued numerous claims, most centrally that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the canine‑DNA evidence’s admissibility/validity and for failing to develop mitigators (mental‑health, financial, expert rebuttal).
- The PCRA court held extensive evidentiary hearings, credited Commonwealth experts on admissibility, found counsel’s strategic choices reasonable, denied relief, and this Court affirmed the PCRA denial.
Issues
| Issue | Treiber’s Argument | Commonwealth’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Trial counsel ineffective for not challenging canine‑DNA (Frye) | Counsel should have filed Frye / attacked Halverson’s methods, qualifications, and stats; exclusion would have likely changed outcome | Experts showed canine DNA testing was generally accepted then; counsel reasonably relied on pretrial advice and pursued contamination strategy; exclusion would not change result | Denied — court found counsel had reasonable basis and Treiber failed to show prejudice given overwhelming circumstantial evidence |
| 2. Brady / witness impeachment (Pianta, Keith, housing of Pianta) | Commonwealth withheld impeachment/beneficial deals (Keith) and failed to disclose police housing of Pianta, which would impeach credibility | No quid pro quo with Keith; Keith invoked Fifth on counsel’s advice; Pianta was housed for safety, not as payment; evidence was not materially favorable | Denied — court found no Brady violation, claims waived or not shown material/prejudicial |
| 3. Failure to investigate/present experts (arson, DNA, mental health, finances) | Counsel failed to obtain or present rebuttal experts (canine DNA, arson, neuropsychology, forensic accounting), prejudicing guilt and penalty phases | Counsel consulted experts, presented reasonable strategy (avoid “tit‑for‑tat” expert battles, avoid sympathy appeals), and Treiber refused to cooperate; PCRA experts not credible | Denied — court credited trial counsel and Commonwealth PCRA experts; no prejudice shown for guilt or sentencing |
| 4. Penalty‑phase instruction / aggravator challenges (grave‑risk vagueness, other charge instruction errors) | Jury instructions (e.g., grave‑risk) were vague or improperly limited mitigating consideration; counsel ineffective for not objecting | Prior precedent upholds the grave‑risk aggravator; claims waived or undeveloped; counsel not ineffective for failing to raise meritless objections | Denied — claims waived or meritless; no relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Treiber, 874 A.2d 26 (Pa. 2005) (direct appeal affirming convictions and death sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 30 A.3d 1111 (Pa. 2011) (standards for ineffective assistance and failure to call witnesses)
- Pierce v. Commonwealth, 527 A.2d 973 (Pa. 1987) (adopting three‑part ineffectiveness test consistent with Strickland)
- Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) (novel scientific evidence admissible only after general acceptance)
- Commonwealth v. Crews, 640 A.2d 395 (Pa. 1994) (recognition of DNA evidence principles)
- Commonwealth v. Lesko, 15 A.3d 345 (Pa. 2011) (caution on relying on expert advice and limits of second‑guessing counsel strategy)