Commonwealth v. Weiss, 622 Pa. 663

Background

Victim Barbara Bruzda disappeared Oct 23, 1978; body found Mar 20, 1979 wrapped in a distinctive quilt.
Appellant Ronald Weiss was linked by witness testimony and physical evidence (blood in car, quilt, party interactions) to the Victim’s disappearance.
Weiss was convicted of first-degree murder in 1997 and sentenced to death after a penalty phase with one aggravator and no mitigators.
A 2003 PCRA petition raised Brady and conflict-of-interest claims; the PCRA court granted relief on guilt and penalty issues, which was reversed on appeal in Weiss II.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the PCRA court’s denial of guilt-phase relief, while recognizing a new penalty-phase proceeding on remand; the Commonwealth did not cross-appeal on the penalty issue.
The current decision addresses guilt-phase claims under PCRA standards, evaluating Brady, conflict of interest, ineffective assistance, and related prosecutorial/defense issues; the penalty-phase relief remains unresolved by this appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Brady materiality of impeachment evidence	Weiss argues suppressed impeachment evidence of Wright/Tribuiani undermined trial.	Commonwealth asserts evidence was not material to guilt given other strong proof and Appellant’s credibility issues.	No reversible guilt-phase error; other strong evidence supported conviction despite Brady omissions.
Conflict of interest in trial counsel	Weiss contends prior representations created adverse effect on counsel’s performance.	Commonwealth contends no active or prejudicial conflict; representations were not concurrent and prejudice not shown.	No merit; no showing that conflict adversely affected representation; claims failed.
Ineffectiveness for not pursuing diminished-capacity defense	Defense allegedly ineffective to pursue diminished-capacity due to innocence stance.	Diminished-capacity unavailable without Weiss conceding liability; no basis to pursue.	Not ineffective; defense acceptable given Weiss’s continued innocence posture.
Admission of prior bad acts	Trial counsel failed to object to prior-bad-acts evidence; claimed prejudicial and improper.	Evidence admissible for non-propensity purposes; any prejudice was minimal and remedied by strategy.	No ineffective-assistance; any error not prejudicial given context and purposes of evidence.
Change of venue and pre-trial publicity	Weiss claims pervasive publicity mandated presumption of prejudice and ineffective handling.	Voir dire showed jurors could be impartial; publicity not saturated; venue denial proper.	No reversible error; publicity did not deprive Weiss of fair trial; venue denial affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

Bagley v. United States, 473 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1985) (impeachment and exculpatory evidence; materiality standard for Brady claims)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1995) (materiality and reasonable probability of different outcome in Brady analysis)
Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (U.S. 1959) (false testimony and its impact on verdicts; due process)
Weiss II, 986 A.2d 808 (Pa. 2009) (Brady analysis on impeachment evidence; remand for fair-trial assessment; credibility of witnesses)
Weiss I, 776 A.2d 958 (Pa. 2001) (direct-appeal opinion in Weiss case)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standards for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Breakiron v. Horn, 642 F.3d 126 (3d Cir. 2011) (impeachment evidence material to conviction in limited contexts)
Munchinski v. Wilson, 694 F.3d 308 (3d Cir. 2012) (considering suppressed evidence in totality; multiple errors may render conviction unjust)
Spotz v., 587 Pa. 1, 896 A.2d 1191 (2006) (conflict of interest and prejudice standards in Pa. PCRA)
Hawkins v. Commonwealth, 567 Pa. 310, 787 A.2d 292 (2001) (conflict of interest analysis; need for prejudice showing)
Chmiel, 585 Pa. 547, 889 A.2d 501 (2005) (admissibility of evidence and expert testimony; strike/limiting instructions)
Lesko, 609 Pa. 128, 15 A.3d 345 (2011) (PCRA procedural requirements and direct questioning of trial counsel)
Puksar, 597 Pa. 240, 951 A.2d 267 (2008) (PCRA proceedings and effectiveness assessments)