Robert Wharton v. Superintendent Graterford SCI, 95 F.4th 140

Robert Wharton was convicted and sentenced to death for a double homicide and attempted escape from prison, with a mixed record of behavior while incarcerated.
On federal habeas review, the Third Circuit identified a possible ineffective assistance of counsel claim and remanded for an evidentiary hearing, specifically instructing the parties to investigate both positive and negative evidence regarding Wharton's prison adjustment.
The Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office (DAO) quickly conceded that Wharton was entitled to habeas relief, asserting it had fully reviewed the facts and law and consulted with the victims’ family, without revealing relevant negative information about Wharton’s prison conduct or the extent of family consultation.
The District Court, not satisfied with DAO’s representations, appointed the Pennsylvania Attorney General as amicus, who uncovered previously undisclosed escape attempts and prison misconducts, and broader family opposition to the concession.
The District Court held that the DAO misled the court, imposed mild sanctions (an apology to family and future candor requirements), and referred the case for potential further discipline.
DAO supervisors appealed the finding of misconduct, though not the sanctions themselves, arguing their conduct was not sanctionable under Rule 11.

Issue	Appellants' Argument	Amicus/AG/Sanctioning Court Argument	Held
Did DAO mislead the court under Rule 11 by failing to reasonably investigate facts before conceding habeas relief?	DAO claimed it reviewed the existing record sufficiently and did not knowingly mislead.	The Office’s review was objectively unreasonable; failed to investigate as ordered, omitting critical evidence.	DAO’s failure to investigate was negligent; sanctions proper.
Did the statement that DAO had contacted the victims’ family violate the duty of candor?	DAO argued that it communicated with family as stated, and the statement was literally true.	Statement was misleading; critical family (including the sole survivor) were never actually contacted.	Statement was misleading and violated Rule 11.
Were procedural due process requirements satisfied before sanctions were imposed?	DAO argued local rules required referral before sanctions, not simultaneous action.	Appellants received notice, opportunity to respond, and a fair hearing.	Due process was provided; procedure appropriate.
Is bad faith required for Rule 11 sanctions, or is negligent misrepresentation enough?	Suggested that only willful conduct should be sanctionable.	Objective standard applies; negligence is sufficient for Rule 11 sanctions.	Objective (negligent) standard applies; sanctions affirmed.

Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1 (requires considering mitigating and anti-mitigating evidence regarding future dangerousness in sentencing)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (sets standard for ineffective assistance of counsel claims)
Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (sets standard for abuse-of-discretion review for Rule 11 sanctions)
Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (distinguishes between inherent power sanctions and Rule 11’s objective standard)
In re Taylor, 655 F.3d 274 (duty of candor includes avoiding misleading half-truths)
Commonwealth v. Brown, 196 A.3d 130 (Pa. Supreme Court held DA concessions cannot substitute for judicial review)
Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Products, Inc., 930 F.2d 277 (discusses when Rule 11 sanctions are mandatory or discretionary)