Commonwealth v. Wilson
147 A.3d 7
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Defendant Zachary T. Wilson convicted in 2014 (after retrials following federal habeas relief) of 1981 first-degree murder of Jamie Lamb and PIC; life sentence imposed.
- Original 1988 conviction (death sentence) was overturned on habeas due to Brady violations; retrial in 2013 hung, retrial in 2014 produced guilty verdict.
- Central facts: eyewitness Edward Jackson and others placed Wilson at the Sweet Joy Lounge where Lamb was shot; witnesses later gave inconsistent or recanted statements; Jackson initially misidentified the shooter in a 1982 lineup after alleged threats.
- Federal habeas found the Commonwealth withheld impeachment material (Jackson’s crimen falsi and psychiatric info; Rahming’s psychiatric history; Gainer’s informant/loan relationship), prompting the 2013 retrial/relief.
- At the 2014 trial, disputes included admissibility of: (1) out-of-court statement by one called “Turtle” reported to have accused Wilson; (2) prior consistent statements and prior trial testimony of Jackson; (3) portions of Wilson’s 1988 penalty-phase testimony; and (4) defense requests for medical records explaining a five-day delay in Jackson’s testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Wilson's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reprosecution should be barred under double jeopardy because prior Brady violations were intentional | Fisk intentionally withheld Brady material in 1988 to deprive Wilson of a fair trial; court should bar retrial or hold a hearing on intent | Tester of intent at PCRA showed no evidence of deliberate suppression; dismissal is extreme and unwarranted | Denied — no evidence prosecution acted to provoke mistrial or subvert truth; no double jeopardy bar and no new hearing required |
| Exclusion of defense witnesses to contextualize Wilson’s threat to “Turtle” (consciousness-of-guilt vs. fear of gang retaliation) | Gang-membership testimony would show Wilson feared retaliation, explaining his threat and undermining consciousness-of-guilt inference | Testimony lacked probative support that gang threatened Wilson; risk of unfair prejudice and confusion outweighed probative value | Denied — exclusion was within discretion under Pa.R.E. 403; claim waived for lack of authority in brief |
| Admission of Patterson’s testimony about Turtle’s accusation and other evidence suggesting Turtle was an eyewitness (Confrontation/Due Process) | Turtle’s statement effectively injected an unavailable eyewitness and deprived Wilson of confrontation; jury likely considered it for truth | Statement admitted not for truth but to show Wilson’s reaction (consciousness of guilt); Crawford permits non-truth use; limiting instruction would have been available but not requested | Denied — testimony was non-hearsay for its purpose; no confrontation violation; context did not show prosecution improperly presented Turtle as live eyewitness |
| Admission of Edward Jackson’s prior consistent statements and prior trial/police statements after impeachment | Prior consistent statements improperly bolstered in-court testimony and some did not pre-date alleged inconsistency, violating Pa.R.E. 613(c) | Rule 613(c)(2) allows prior consistent statements to rehabilitate when rebutting prior inconsistent statements; timing is not fatal | Denied — prior consistent statements were admissible under Pa.R.E. 613(c)(2) to rebut impeachment and clarify testimony |
| Use of Wilson’s 1988 penalty-phase testimony ("I wish I had killed him") as evidence of motive | Testimony was fruit of earlier Brady-tainted 1988 proceedings and therefore inadmissible under Harrison (fruit of poisonous tree) | Harrison limited to confessions illegally introduced by prosecution at trial in its case-in-chief; earlier testimony admissible and cumulative to other evidence of motive | Denied — Harrison not controlling; admission was at most cumulative and any error harmless |
| Denial of discovery into Jackson’s medical records after a 5-day delay in his testimony | Given prior Brady failures, defense was entitled to probe medical reasons for delay (possible credibility impairment) | Court properly controlled witness order and had medical note; defense requests speculative and invasive; cross-examination sufficed | Denied — no abuse of discretion; request speculative and not shown material under Pa.R.Crim.P. 573 |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecution’s suppression of materially exculpatory evidence violates due process)
- Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668 (U.S. 2004) (clarifies materiality and prejudice analysis under Brady)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause bars testimonial out-of-court statements offered for truth; non-truth uses not barred)
- Harrison v. United States, 392 U.S. 219 (U.S. 1968) (limited rule excluding testimony compelled by prior illegally introduced confessions)
- Spotz v. Commonwealth, 896 A.2d 1191 (Pa. 2006) (no Brady violation where defendant had equal access to evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Harris, 852 A.2d 1168 (Pa. 2004) (Rule 613(c)(2) permits prior consistent statements to rebut impeachment for prior inconsistent statements)
- Commonwealth v. Wholaver, 989 A.2d 883 (Pa. 2010) (failure to request limiting instruction waives claim for appellate review)
- Commonwealth v. Boyle, 447 A.2d 250 (Pa. 1982) (testimony from earlier trial may be introduced in later proceedings)