Earlier this month, LSSC filed an amicus brief as pro bono counsel on behalf of the Pennsylvania Innocence Project and the Innocence Network in a case before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
In re Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. LaVar Brown, No. 32 EM 2023, concerns whether, and via what procedure, a court may grant post-conviction relief to a criminal defendant when the prosecution confesses error and concedes that relief is due.
This issue has risen to the forefront of discussion in recent years due to increased attention on the integrity of prior criminal convictions. Since 2003, “Conviction Integrity Units” (CIUs) at prosecutors’ offices nationwide have contributed to the exoneration of at least 775 individuals, including 42 in Pennsylvania, which currently has at least four CIUs—in Chester, Centre, and Philadelphia Counties, and at the Attorney General’s Office. Even prosecutors’ offices without dedicated CIUs have increasingly scrutinized prior convictions.
In many instances, it is prosecutors who are best positioned to recognize that an injustice has occurred and to aid in its correction. However, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has made clear that courts must maintain their judicial independence as the final arbiters of whether relief is due under the law.
Some commentators have called upon the Supreme Court to require additional procedures when the prosecution confesses error. Such procedures might include automatic inclusion of other persons or agencies, such as victims’ families or the Attorney General’s office, to weigh in on the proceedings.
Drawing upon numerous cases in which the Pennsylvania Innocence Project has been involved, the Pennsylvania Innocence Project and the Innocence Network’s brief argues that existing procedures are sufficient to ensure fair and independent consideration of post-conviction relief. Specifically, the brief demonstrates that courts are not acting as “rubber stamps,” necessitating additional intervention, and that requiring additional procedure would likely delay post-conviction proceedings without concomitant benefit while harming those wrongfully convicted. Through an exhaustive review of Innocence Project cases, the brief tells the stories of over 15 individuals who were wrongfully convicted and ultimately exonerated after years of litigation and procedural hurdles.
One such example is Marshall Hale, who was convicted in 1984 for raping a teenage girl. It was only later discovered that the prosecution possessed biological evidence excluding Mr. Hale as the culprit. Despite the discovery of this evidence, the Commonwealth continued to oppose relief for seven years. Finally, in 2017, after reviewing Mr. Hale’s case again, the Commonwealth conceded that relief was due. The court ultimately granted Mr. Hale’s petition for post-conviction relief, dismissed Mr. Hale’s charges, and he was released after 33 years wrongfully incarcerated. Mr. Hale also ultimately received $3 million in compensation from the City of Philadelphia.
Stories like Mr. Hale’s underscore the gauntlet that those wrongfully convicted must run to obtain relief. LSSC is proud to have partnered with the Pennsylvania Innocence Project and Innocence Network to share these stories and to forcefully argue that there need not be yet more barriers in the way of those wrongfully convicted.
The LSSC team includes John Stapleton, Jon Cochran, Lowry Yankwich, and Tara Amenhauser.
Co-counsel on the brief include Nilam A. Sanghvi and Jonah Rosenbaum of the Pennsylvania Innocence Project and Jamie T. Lau of the Duke Wrongful Convictions Clinic.
LSSC is a business litigation boutique with a diverse and sophisticated practice and offices in Philadelphia and New Jersey.
