Among the many things criminal defense lawyers have to deal with in the representation of our clients is a Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) petition raising the ineffectiveness of counsel at trial when the client is unhappy with the outcome. I realize some are valid complaints, but the majority are baseless and just seek to blame the lawyer for the punishment of a crime the lawyer didn’t commit.
In the interesting case of Commonwealth v. Jerome King, 3251 EDA 2015, 167 A.3d 140 (Pa. Super. 2017), the Superior Court held that trial counsel did not have to cooperate with the District Attorney’s request for an ex parte interview with trial counsel prior to the PCRA hearing. The facts leading to the conviction and the PCRA are less important than the result of the interview request, so they won’t require review here. Instead, it was the PCRA counsel’s request to speak with trial counsel and the DA’s request for an ex parte interview with trial counsel that piqued our interest.
PCRA counsel wrote to trial counsel, who ignored the letter and a phone call. When finally contacted, he replied, “You are nuts if you think I am going to help you.” PCRA counsel wrote to trial counsel asking him to consider his duty of loyalty to his former client and not to speak or share any information with the Commonwealth. The DA requested a meeting with the trial counsel, who rightly refused to do so, compelling the filing of a Motion by the Appellee (the former client) seeking to preclude trial counsel from being interviewed by the DA. The PCRA court granted this motion, and the Commonwealth appealed. The appeal was accepted under Rule 313 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, which permits an immediate appeal as of right.
The Superior Court decided that a claim of ineffectiveness in a PCRA proceeding constitutes a waiver of the attorney-client and confidentiality privileges. Further, the Court held that trial counsel was correct in refusing to meet with the DA and that a preclusion order was necessary because a private interview between the DA and trial counsel could “easily become a freewheeling inquiry into privileged matters that fall outside the scope of the ineffectiveness claims raised by Appellee. The Court said, “the only way to guard against this hazard is to order the Commonwealth to refrain from interviewing trial counsel in advance of the PCRA evidentiary hearing.”
The takeaway from King is that despite your angst at being PCRA’ed, you cannot cooperate with the DA, who wants to meet with you before the hearing, so you can feel vindicated after the PCRA hearing. The Rules of Professional Conduct 1.9 and 1.6 and Commonwealth v. King should guide your actions.
Understanding the PCRA Process in the Criminal Justice System
The Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) is a crucial component of the criminal justice system in Pennsylvania, providing a mechanism for defendants to challenge their convictions and sentences. The PCRA process is designed to ensure that defendants receive a fair and just outcome, and it is essential to understand the intricacies of this process to navigate it effectively.
The PCRA process typically begins with the filing of a petition by the defendant, which must be done within a year of the judgment or sentence becoming final. The petition must be filed in the court where the original trial took place, and it must include specific claims of error or ineffectiveness of counsel. The Commonwealth will then respond to the petition, and the PCRA court will review the claims and make a determination.
It is essential to have experienced representation throughout the PCRA process, as the stakes are high, and the consequences of a successful appeal can be significant. A skilled attorney can help navigate the complex legal landscape and ensure that the defendant’s rights are protected.
The Risks of Cooperating with the DA
Cooperating with the District Attorney’s Office in a PCRA proceeding can be risky and potentially detrimental to the defendant’s case. As seen in the case of Commonwealth v. Jerome King, the Superior Court held that trial counsel did not have to cooperate with the DA’s request for an ex parte interview prior to the PCRA hearing. This decision highlights the importance of maintaining confidentiality and avoiding any actions that could compromise the defendant’s case.
Cooperating with the DA can also lead to a waiver of the attorney-client and confidentiality privileges, which can have severe consequences for the defendant. It is essential to understand the risks associated with cooperating with the DA and to seek the advice of experienced counsel to ensure that the defendant’s rights are protected.
The Importance of Experienced Representation in Federal Courts
Federal courts play a critical role in the criminal justice system, and it is essential to have experienced representation when navigating these courts. The Federal Litigation Unit represents the Commonwealth in the federal District Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court, and it is crucial to have skilled attorneys who understand the complexities of federal law and procedure.
Experienced representation in federal courts can make a significant difference in the outcome of a case. A skilled attorney can help navigate the complex legal landscape, ensure that the defendant’s rights are protected, and advocate for the best possible outcome. Whether it is a habeas corpus petition or an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, experienced representation is essential to achieving a successful outcome.
The articles on this blog are for informative purposes only and are no substitute for legal advice or an attorney-client relationship. If you are seeking legal advice, please contact our law firm directly.
Rubin, Glickman, Steinberg & Gifford P.C.
Pennsylvania Attorney's
December 24, 2024
