Commonwealth v. Williams, 607 Pa. 597

Williams was convicted in 2002 of multiple sexual offenses against children and sentenced in 2003 to 22–44 years.
In 2006, Williams filed a counseled PCRA claiming ineffective assistance for failing to object to jurors reviewing an audiotaped witness testimony during deliberations.
The PCRA court dismissed; a three-judge Superior Court panel affirmed, holding the jury violated Rule 602 by reviewing the tape outside Williams's presence but found the error harmless and ruled Rule 646 did not apply to audiotapes.
The Superior Court concluded the audiotape did not prejudice Williams and that Peterman guidance distinguished review of transcripts from audio recordings.
This Court granted allowance of appeal to decide (1) whether presence is required during deliberation review of audio testimony, and (2) whether Rule 646 bars audiotaped testimony in deliberations, with review under Strickland/Pierce standards.
The Court affirmed the Superior Court’s rulings, concluding no ineffective-assistance warranting relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Right to presence at trial stage violated	Williams argues Rule 602 requires presence when the tape is played.	Williams concedes no right to enter the jury room but argues objecting would have altered outcome; trial strategy lacked prejudice.	First issue has arguable merit; but no prejudice shown.
Rule 646 prohibits transcripts in deliberations; audiotape is transcript-like	646(B)(1) bars any transcript-like material, including audiotapes, during deliberations.	Audio recording is not a written transcript; 646 does not apply.	Rule 646 not violated; no arguable merit.
Ineffective assistance standard applicable	Cites Strickland to show prejudice if counsel failed to object; presumption of prejudice under Cronic.	Cronic inapplicable; counsel contested the charges; no wholesale denial of counsel.	Strickland/Pierce framework applies; no actual prejudice established.
Peterman precedent governs new-trial analysis	Peterman requires open-court review to avoid undue emphasis when reviewing testimony.	Peterman is distinguishable; no new testimonial summaries were conducted in open court.	Peterman distinguishable; no new-trial remedy warranted.

Commonwealth v. Canales, 454 Pa. 422 (Pa. 1973) (transcripts prohibited in jury room due to credibility concerns)
Commonwealth v. Peterman, 430 Pa. 627 (Pa. 1968) (jury review of testimony must occur in open court when requested)
Commonwealth v. Oleynik, 524 Pa. 41 (Pa. 1990) (written instructions/transcripts cautionary effects on deliberations)
Commonwealth v. Karaffa, 551 Pa. 173 (Pa. 1998) (caution against undue emphasis on written material)
Commonwealth v. Small, 559 Pa. 423 (Pa. 1999) (limits on reviewing testimony to avoid undue weighting)
Commonwealth v. Williams, 0 A.3d (Pa. 2009) (standard PCRA effectiveness framework discussed (Strickland/Pierce))
Commonwealth v. Reaves, 592 Pa. 134 (Pa. 2007) (presumed prejudice exceptions for denial of counsel)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes prejudicial standard for ineffective assistance)
United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (U.S. 1984) (presumption of prejudice for total denial of counsel)