Summary
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court considers whether a PCRA court’s order requiring disclosure of a prosecutor’s trial notes is immediately appealable as a collateral order. The Court holds that the discovery order is appealable under Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 313 because it is separable from the underlying PCRA claims, implicates the important work-product doctrine, and would cause an irreparable loss if review were deferred. On the merits, the Court concludes that the PCRA court lacked good cause under Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 902(E)(2) to order the discovery, vacates the order, and remands for resolution of the PCRA petition.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the PCRA court's discovery order compelling disclosure of the prosecutor's trial-preparation notes was immediately appealable as a collateral order under Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 313.
- Whether the PCRA court abused its discretion by ordering discovery without a showing of good cause under Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 902(E)(2).
- Whether Brady v. Maryland or the comment to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 573 creates an automatic right to inspect a prosecutor's file or trial-preparation notes during a PCRA proceeding.
Holdings
- A PCRA court discovery order that, by its terms, requires disclosure of materials subject to a colorable work-product claim is appealable as of right under Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 313.
- A capital PCRA petitioner must show good cause under Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 902(E)(2) before obtaining discovery; a speculative possibility that prosecutor's notes might contain exculpatory information is insufficient.
- Brady v. Maryland does not create an automatic right to inspect the prosecutor's file or trial-preparation notes during PCRA review; PCRA discovery remains governed by Rule 902(E)(2).
Key quotations
“Accordingly, we hold that a PCRA court discovery order which by its plain terms embraced materials subject to work product privilege, such as this one, is appealable as of right pursuant to Rule 313.” (86 A.3d at 784)
“A capital PCRA discovery order supported by nothing more than speculation — that there could “possibly” be something exculpatory contained in the material — does not meet the good cause threshold under Rule 902(E)(2).” (86 A.3d at 791)
Factual background
In 1995, James T. Williams shot and killed Richard White during a robbery connected to a drug transaction. Williams was convicted in 2001 of first-degree murder, robbery, and conspiracy to commit robbery and received a death sentence. During the subsequent capital PCRA proceeding, Williams sought the former trial prosecutor's notes relating to four cooperating co-conspirator witnesses, asserting that the materials might reveal undisclosed inconsistencies or Brady evidence.
Procedural history
Williams was convicted of first-degree murder and related offenses and sentenced to death; the Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal. During his first counseled PCRA proceeding, the PCRA court ordered production of the former trial prosecutor's notes concerning four cooperating witnesses, despite the Commonwealth's objections based on work product and lack of good cause. The PCRA court denied reconsideration but stayed the order, and the Commonwealth appealed. The Supreme Court held the order immediately appealable, vacated it, and remanded for final resolution of the PCRA petition.
Remand instructions
Vacate the discovery order and remand for final resolution of Williams's PCRA petition, including resolution of the propriety of the Federal Community Defender Office's role as standby counsel. Jurisdiction was relinquished.