Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Munchinski v. Solomon

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

June 27, 2017

DAVID MUNCHINSKI, Plaintiff,
v.
GERALD SOLOMON, and RALPH WARMAN, in their individual capacities; and DANA L. FAYOCK, Executrix of the Estate of George Fayock, Defendants.

          Noah Geary, Esquire

          Bethann R. Lloyd, Esquire

          Jason R. McLean, Esquire

          Thomas P. Pellis, Esquire

          Lee R. Demosky, Esquire

          Mary L. Friedline, Esquire

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          David Stewart Cercone United States District Judge.

         I. Introduction

         Plaintiff, David Munchinski (“Munchinski” or “Plaintiff”), filed a two count Amended Complaint against Defendants, Gerald Solomon (“Solomon”), Ralph Warman (“Warman”), John Kopas, III (“Kopas”)[1], and Dana L. Fayock, Executrix of the Estate of George Fayock “Fayock”)(collectively “Defendants”), asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violation of his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution at Count I and a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging malicious prosecution at Count II. Solomon, Warman and Kopas were prosecutors for the Fayette County District Attorney's Office during the times relevant to this action, and George Fayock (“Fayock) was an employee of the Pennsylvania State Police. Motions for Summary Judgment have been filed on behalf of all the Defendants and on behalf of Munchinski. Responses to the motions have been filed and the motions are now before the Court.

         II. Statement of the Case

         On or about December 2, 1977, two (2) men, James P. Alford (“Alford') and Raymond Gierke (“Gierke”) were sexually assaulted and murdered in Bear Rocks, Fayette County, Pennsylvania. Solomon & Warman Concise Statement of Material Facts (“S & W CSMF”) ¶ 1. Trooper Montgomery Goodwin (“Goodwin”) of the Pennsylvania State Police was the lead investigator on the Alford/Gierke homicide case. Fayock Concise Statement of Material Fact (“F CSMF”) ¶ 2. Over the next several years, the State Police interviewed more than one hundred individuals and pursued numerous leads without success. F CSMF ¶ 4.

         Munchinski's name surfaced as a suspect in the murders in January 1978, when several witnesses reported that Munchinski confessed to the murders at the Five Points Bar in Greensburg, Pennsylvania. F CSMF ¶ 5. Goodwin interviewed Munchinski and Leon Scaglione (“Scaglione”) on February 8, 1978 in the Westmoreland County Prison. F CSMF ¶ 7. Munchinski denied involvement and offered assistance if Goodwin would help him with certain charges filed against him. F CSMF ¶ 8.

         On June 24, 1979, Goodwin and Corporal Mangiacarne (“Mangiacarne”) interviewed Richard Bowen (“Bowen”), who was incarcerated in Greensburg. F CSMF ¶ 9. Bowen told the State Police that Scaglione had admitted shooting Alford and Gierke in Bear Rocks. F CSMF ¶ 10. On September 9, 1982, Goodwin, accompanied by Corporal Bernard Gorman (“Gorman”) of the Pennsylvania State Police, interviewed Bowen at the Monaca Police Department. F CSMF ¶ 11; S & W CSMF ¶ 14. Goodwin had Bowen sign a waiver of rights prior to the interview. Joint Appendix Solomon/Warman (“JA”) Ex. 4; Munchinski Appendix [ECF No. 150], (“Munch. App.”) Exhibit C, p. 119. During the interview, Bowen told Goodwin that he drove Munchinski and Scaglione to the cabin in Bear Rocks, and waited in the car while Munchinski and Scaglione went inside. F CSMF ¶¶ 12 & 13; JA Ex.4. Bowen told Goodwin that he heard gun shots, Munchinski and Scaglione ran from the cabin, and they drove back to Greensburg. F CSMF ¶ 13; JA Ex. 4. Bowen also stated that he read about the killings the next day, and he went to Oklahoma to stay with his father.[2] Id. Bowen told Goodwin he would testify if he was given immunity. JA Ex. 4.

         Bowen agreed to go with Goodwin and Gorman to the Fayette County Courthouse and furnish a statement to District Attorney Solomon. F CSMF ¶ 15; JA Ex. 4. Solomon testified that the purpose of the meeting was to interview Bowen to determine “if, in fact, [Bowen] had information relative to [the Alford/Gierke] homicides.” Munchinski Appendix [ECF. 139] (“M. App.”) Ex. 12 p. 120. Bowen signed a waiver of rights and was interviewed by Solomon and Assistant District Attorney Warman. F CSMF ¶ 16; JA Ex. 4. Gorman, Fayock, and Goodwin, all from the Pennsylvania State Police, were also present during the interview. Id. Bowen provided a statement, which Goodwin indicated was recorded and was to be transcribed by the DA's office. JA Ex. 4.

         On October 21, 1982, Goodwin, Gorman and Mangiacarne appeared with Bowen in Solomon's office, and Bowen gave another statement which, unlike the previous statement he gave in September, indicated that he was in the cabin and witnessed the sexual assaults and the shootings of Alford and Gierke. JA Ex.6. The statement was taped and transcribed. F CSMF ¶ 21. Based upon Bowen's statement, Goodwin prepared an Affidavit of Probable Cause, and signed and filed the criminal complaint against Munchinski.

         On October 22, 1982, Munchinski and Scaglione were arrested and charged with two (2) counts of Criminal Homicide and two (2) counts of Criminal Conspiracy to commit homicide. Munchinski v. Wilson, 807 F.Supp.2d 242, 250 (W.D. Pa. 2011). Munchinski and Scaglione were jointly tried in April of 1983. Id. There was no physical evidence linking either individual to the crimes. Instead, the Commonwealth relied heavily on the testimony of Bowen, who, as stated above, claimed to have been an eyewitness to the murders, and whose testimony alone placed Munchinski at the scene of the crimes. Id. Specifically, Bowen testified that Gierke and Alford were raped by Scaglione and Munchinski, respectively, and that the two victims were murdered almost immediately thereafter. Munchinski v. Wilson, 694 F.3d 308, 315 (3d Cir. 2012). Bowen's trial testimony, however, was markedly different from the statements he gave police when he first approached them as a potential witness. Id. Bowen's testimony was also at odds with certain facts that were elicited at trial. For example, Bowen claimed that he drove Scaglione and Munchinski to the site of the murders in Scaglione's lime green Ford Gran Torino. Id. Scaglione, however, did not purchase that Gran Torino until almost six months after the murders. Id.

         The prosecution also presented Lori Lexa (“Lexa”) and Deborah Sue Dahlmann (“Dahlmann”) who testified that Munchinski and Scaglione confessed to murdering Alford and Gierke while at the Five Points Bar in Greensburg on January 28, 1978. Munchinski v. Wilson, 807 F.Supp.2d at 250; S & W CSMF ¶ 4. Lexa and Dahlmann were friends prior to their involvement in the case, and Dahlmann's ex-husband, Ed Wiltrout, was a prime suspect in the murders of Alford and Gierke. Munchinski v. Wilson, 694 F.3d at 315. At that time, however, Munchinski was unaware that a witness told police that Wiltrout was one of the shooters. Id. Munchinski was unable to cross-examine Dahlmann with the witness statement implicating Wiltrout because the report documenting that statement had not been produced. Id. The joint trial ended in a hung jury, and a mistrial was declared. Id.

         On October 31, 1983, upon the filing of a “Petition to View Evidence” on behalf of Munchinski and Scaglione, the Honorable Richard D. Cicchetti “ordered and directed” that:

counsel for the defendants, and the defendant, David Joseph Munchinski be permitted to examine, inspect, photograph and make record notes of all evidence that the Office of the District Attorney and/or the Pennsylvania State Police or their agents, may have in their possession or that they may acquire, that relates to the above captioned cases.

         M App. Ex. 5. Despite Judge Cicchetti's order, Munchinski contends that following exculpatory evidence was withheld:

(1) Police reports showing that Bowen, the purported eyewitness and get-away driver, was in Oklahoma on the night of the murders;
(2) A police report showing that an individual named Mike Urdzick had confessed with specificity to murdering the victims with an accomplice, Edgar Wiltrout;
(3) A police report by Pennsylvania State Trooper Montgomery Goodwin which contradicted Bowen regarding the timing of the anal rape of the victims;
(4) A report memorializing a conversation with a deputy coroner that contradicted Bowen's account of the anal rape of the victims;
(5) A one (1) page addendum to the autopsy report that was exculpatory on its face;
(6) A police report showing the existence of nail scrapings which could have been tested;
(7) Information on the leniency Defendants allegedly offered Bowen in exchange for his testimony;
(8) A police report regarding a conversation between one of the victims and a telephone operator, which contradicted Bowen's eyewitness account;
(9) A police report indicating the involvement of an individual named Robert Mangello in the murders;
(10) A police report of indicating the involvement of an individual named Joseph Lucy in the murders;
(11) A police report by Trooper Goodwin regarding Bowen's first statement provided to law enforcement; and
(12) The content of Bowen's tape recorded statement made on September 9, 1982. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 33, 34.

         In October 1986, the Commonwealth retried Scaglione. During his trial, Scaglione admitted to committing the murders. Scaglione testified that Munchinski had no involvement in the murders, but that Scaglione had committed the crimes with an associate named Homer Stewart who allegedly resembled Munchinski. Munchinski v. Wilson, 694 F.3d at 315. Scaglione was convicted of two counts of first degree homicide and two counts of second degree homicide. Id.

         The Commonwealth retried Munchinski in November of 1986. Id. With no physical evidence, the Commonwealth again presented the testimony of Bowen, Lexa, and Dahlmann, and also offered the testimony of Bernard Furr, another acquaintance of Dahlmann's, who testified regarding an alleged confession to the murders by Munchinski in January 1978, and the testimony of Harold Thomas, who testified that Munchinski confessed while in jail in 1983. Munchinski v. Wilson, 694 F.3d at 316. In his case, Munchinski sought to introduce Scaglione's testimony from his retrial, in which he implicated Stewart in the murders and exonerated Munchinski. Scaglione, however, refused to testify, invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Id. The trial court denied Munchinski's request that Scaglione be granted use immunity, and also ruled that Scaglione's prior testimony was inadmissible under Pennsylvania law. Id. Munchinski, therefore, was unable to introduce any exculpatory testimony from Scaglione. Id.

         In his closing argument to the jury, Warman stated: “did you hear anyone testify that Bowen received anything other than immunity? No . . . does that bolster his testimony to indicate that Bowen was there?” Munchinski v. Wilson, 694 F.3d at 316. The Third Circuit found that Warman's argument “misled the jury” because prosecutors in Fayette County had reached a leniency agreement with Bowen, whereby Westmoreland County prosecutors would be lenient towards Bowen in his ongoing parole revocation hearings in exchange for Bowen's testimony against Munchinski. Id. In addition, the prosecutors failed to turn over the documents evidencing this leniency agreement to Munchinski. Id. Munchinski was found guilty of first-degree homicide and, on June 15, 1987, he was sentenced to two consecutive life sentences. Id. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the judgment of sentence on November 13, 1991. Id.

         Solomon was elected to the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County, Pennsylvania in November of 1987, and did not represent the Commonwealth thereafter. S & W CSMF ¶ 99.

         In November 1991, Bowen, who was imprisoned in Oklahoma at the time, asked to speak with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (the “FBI”) with regard to the murders of Alford and Gierke. Munchinski v. Wilson, 694 F.3d at 316. Bowen was interviewed in prison by FBI Special Agent Matthew Schenk. Id.; M. App. Ex. 11. During the interview, Bowen recanted his trial testimony, stating, inter alia, that: (1) he was not involved in any fashion with Scaglione or Munchinski in the killings of Alford and Gierke; (2) he was told what his testimony would be by Troopers Goodwin and Gorman, and District Attorney Solomon; (3) he was provided a fictitious script as to what he was to testify to during the trial for the killings of Alford and Gierke; (3) he was given money, assistance with certain legal problems, and was promised a $10, 000 reward posted by the victims' parents in exchange for his cooperation and testimony; and (4) Goodwin told Bowen that if he did not testify against Scaglione and Munchinski, Goodwin would get someone to testify against him for the murders. M. App. Ex. 11.

         When Munchinski became aware of Bowen's recantation to Special Agent Schneck, he arranged to depose Bowen. Munchinski v. Wilson, 694 F.3d at 316; M. App. Ex. 20. On April 4, 1992, Bowen testified that he did not meet Munchinski until 1978 when they were serving time in jail in Westmoreland County. M. App. Ex. 20, p. 7. Bowen further testified that on the day Alford and Gierke were killed, he was at his father's house in Okmulgee, Oklahoma. M. App. Ex. 20, p. 9. Bowen further stated that Scaglione did in fact admit to the murders of Alford and Gierke, but that Scaglione never mentioned Munchinski. M. App. Ex. 20, p. 21. Bowen testified that Goodwin said he would be charged with murder if he did not testify based upon a narrative given to him by Goodwin. M. App. Ex. 20, p. 23-24. According to Bowen, Solomon also knew he did not witness the murders, but insisted he testify that he did in fact witness the murders. M. App. Ex. 20, p. 42-44.

         Munchinski filed his first petition for relief under the Pennsylvania Post-Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 9541, et seq. (“PCRA I”) on April 16, 1992. The PCRA I petition sought relief based on two articles of newly-discovered evidence: (1) a September 1982 report from Trooper Goodwin (the “Goodwin Report”)[3] that was intentionally edited to conceal a reference to a recorded statement made by Bowen; and (2) Bowen's sworn deposition testimony. Munchinski v. Wilson, 694 F.3d at 317. Munchinski's PCRA I was assigned to Judge William J. Franks of the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County[4]. Id.

         Judge Franks held an evidentiary hearing during which Warman admitted that he intentionally edited the Goodwin Report, removing a paragraph which indicated that Bowen made a statement in Solomon's office on that date, which was then recorded for future transcription, and that Bowen had signed a waiver of rights. Munchinski v. Wilson, 694 F.3d at 318; Munchinski v. Wilson, 807 F.Supp.2d 242, 253 (W.D. Pa. 2011); M. App. Exs. 13 & 18. Warman intentionally removed the paragraph and pasted together the surrounding paragraphs in such a manner as to conceal the removal. Munchinski v. Wilson, 807 F.Supp.2d at 253. Warman testified that he removed the paragraph because, according to him, no statement was actually recorded or transcribed and the reference would be “misleading.” Munchinski v. Wilson, 694 F.3d at 318; Munchinski v. Wilson, 807 F.Supp.2d at 253. Solomon also testified and corroborated Warman's testimony. Id.; Munchinski v. Wilson, 807 F.Supp.2d at 253-254.

         Though Judge Franks concluded that no recording had been made of Bowen's statement on September 9, 1982, he ordered the Commonwealth to produce all Pennsylvania State Police investigation files related to the murders of Alford and Gierke, as well as three additional files on Bowen, for an in camera review based upon Warman's admission that he modified the Goodwin Report. Id.; Munchinski v. Wilson, 807 F.Supp.2d at 254. Judge Franks reviewed the files, and ordered that everything he deemed to be discoverable be produced to Munchinski. Munchinski v. Wilson, 807 F.Supp.2d at 254. Judge Franks found that none of the documents that had been produced as part of Bowen's files were discoverable. Id.

         Based on Bowen's statement to the FBI and subsequent deposition, Munchinski called Bowen to testify at his PCRA I hearing and recant his trial testimony. Munchinski v. Wilson, 694 F.3d at 318. Bowen invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, and Judge Franks granted Bowen use immunity for his testimony. Id. Bowen, however, disavowed his deposition testimony and reaffirmed his testimony from the 1986 retrial. Id. Bowen subsequently committed suicide while incarcerated in Oklahoma. Munchinski v. Wilson, 807 F.Supp.2d at 254, n.8.

         Kenneth Knight (“Knight”), an acquaintance of Bowen's from prison, was also called to testify at the PCRA I hearing. Munchinski v. Wilson, 694 F.3d at 319. Knight testified that he introduced Bowen to Scaglione and Munchinski in March 1978, long after the December 1977 murders of Alford and Gierke, when they were incarcerated together in Westmoreland County Jail. Id. Knight further testified that Bowen admitted that he was in Oklahoma at the time of the murders, and that he lied under oath during the murder trials. Id.

         On August 5, 1993, Judge Franks dismissed Munchinski's PCRA I petition, and on December 11, 1995, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed Judge Franks' dismissal. Id.

         Warman became a judge in the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County, Pennsylvania in 1996, and did not represent the Commonwealth in the Munchinski case thereafter. S & W CSMF ¶ 125.

         On March 21, 2001, Munchinski filed his third PCRA petition[5] (the “PCRA III” petition). S & W CSMF ¶ 126; Munchinski v. Wilson, 694 F.3d at 320. Because Solomon and Warman were now sitting judges of the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County, the remaining judges of the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County recused themselves from the matter. Munchinski v. Wilson, 694 F.3d at 320. The Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts assigned the PCRA III Petition to Judge Barry Feudale of the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland County. Id.

         In his PCRA III petition, Munchinski alleged that eleven (11) pieces of exculpatory evidence were unlawfully suppressed by the prosecution during his homicide trials in 1983 and 1986, and during his first PCRA proceedings. Munchinski v. Wilson, 807 F.Supp.2d 255. The District Court identified the alleged exculpatory evidence as follows:

(1) The Bates report: a one-page report of trooper George F. Bates, dated January 6, 1978, relating an interview with Maria Caccia, who indicated that Bowen had left Pennsylvania for Oklahoma on December 1, 1977.
(2) The Goodwin/Powell report: a report, dated December 20, 1977, written by Goodwin. In this report, Goodwin indicated that Deputy Coroner Jack Powell informed him that it was believed that the anal intercourse to which Alford was subjected would have taken place 24 hours prior to his death.
(3) The Powell addendum: a typewritten summary of a phone call, attributed to Fayette County Deputy Coroner Jack Powell, dated December 14, 1977, indicating that the anal intercourse to which Alford was subjected possibly occurred “at least 24 hours” before his death.
(4) The addendum to Alford's autopsy: a one-page addendum to Alford's autopsy report, dated December 17, 1977 and signed by Dr. Sava, indicating that the medical samples taken from Alford's rectum were of blood group “A”. [Munchinski] avers, and the Superior Court concluded, that [his] blood group is “B”. Dr. Sava noted in this report that contamination of the samples by the contents of Alford's own urethra “[could not] be entirely ruled out.”
(5) The Mangiacarne/Carbone report: a report written by Corporal Mangiacarne, dated December 16, 1980, relating his interview of an individual named Elizabeth Carbone (“Carbone”). According to this report, Carbone described a detailed confession to the murders [of Alford and Gierke], given to her by an individual named Mike Urdzik (“Urdzik”). In this confession, Urdzik implicated one Ed Wiltrout (“Wiltrout”) in the [Alford and Gierke] murders.
(6) The Kinch report: a report written by Trooper Robert Kinch, dated December 19, 1977, which indicated that certain biological evidence, including nail scrapings, had been taken from Alford. The existence of this evidence was unknown to [Munchinski] until the report's discovery, sometime during the pendency of his first habeas appeal.
(7) Bowen's parole revocation documents: four pages of documents from Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, related to parole revocation hearings for Bowen in 1983. [Munchinski] argues that multiple passages in these documents support the conclusion that an undisclosed agreement for leniency existed between Bowen, the Westmoreland County District Attorney's office, and the Fayette County District Attorney's office. Examples of these passages include: “[t]he Actor [Bowen] is present [sic] [in] a situation which could solve his charges. . . “, and “[t]his petition was not filed before this date at the request of [then Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, ] D.A. John J. Driscoll because of [Bowen's] role as a witness in a murder trial Fayette County.”
(8) The Dunkard/Proud report: a report written by Trooper Edward Dunkard (“Dunkard”), dated December 5, 1977, indicating that Delores Proud (“Proud”), then a dispatcher for the Mt. Pleasant, Pennsylvania, Police Department, received a call at 2:32 A.M. on December 2, 1977, from a telephone operator, who stated, “[a] man said he was shot and lives at 837 Alpine Rd., in Bear Rocks.” The report also indicates that Proud received a call about eighteen minutes later requesting an ambulance from Bonnie Blackson, the woman who discovered Alford's body on her porch.
(9) The Veil/Mangello report: a one page report written by Trooper Richard Veil (“Veil”), dated June 23, 1986, in which inmate Robert Lee Mangello (“Mangello”) indicated that Joseph Lucy (“Lucy”), [Munchinski's] criminal co-defendant Scaglione, and a third, unnamed man, committed the murders [of Alford and Gierke] at Bear Rocks in “1972-1973”. The record indicates that this document came into [Munchinski's] possession on March 10, 2003, during discovery for his third PCRA proceedings.
(10) The Madden/Lucy report: the October 15, 1986, report of Trooper William F. Madden (“Madden”), in which Lucy denied Mangello's accusations. However, Lucy went on to say that Mangello had indicated that he was a witness to the shootings at Bear Rocks himself. The record indicates that this document came into [Munchinski's] possession on March 10, 2003, during discovery for his third PCRA proceedings.
(11) The marked Bates report: a second copy of the above-mentioned “Bates report, ” received during the course of discovery on March 10, 2003. [Munchinski] argues that, due to the markings made on the report, which emphasize, inter alia, the passage “and BOWEN left on the 1st of December, ” this exhibit is materially different from the unmarked version that had been discovered earlier. [Munchinski] avers that this version of the Bates report was marked in this manner when he received it, and argues that this bolsters his contention that prosecutors knew of the exculpatory information (i.e., that Bowen was in transit to Oklahoma) at the time of the murders [of Alford and Gierke] on December 2, 1977.

Munchinski v. Wilson, 807 F.Supp.2d 255-256 (internal citations omitted).

         Judge Feudale held several days of hearings on the PCRA III petition. Judge Franks, who had presided over Munchinski's PCRA I petition, testified at the PCRA III hearing and stated that had he been aware of the Bates Report, the Goodwin/Powell Report, and the Mangiacarne/Carbone Report, which were withheld from his in camera review by the prosecution, he may well have granted relief on Munchinski's PCRA I petition. Munchinski v. Wilson, 694 F.3d at 321-322.

         Judge Feudale also examined evidence indicating that a tape recording had been made of a statement that was taken from Bowen on September 9, 1982, which had never been produced to Munchinski. Munchinski v. Wilson, 807 F.Supp.2d at 257. This evidence included a police report written by Goodwin on September 9 or 10, 1982, as well as the testimony of Warman and Goodwin with regard to the recorded statement referenced therein. Unlike the PCRA I court, Judge Feudale held that Munchinski had demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that a tape of this statement existed and was improperly concealed and withheld by the Commonwealth. Id.; see also Munchinski v. Wilson, 694 F.3d at 322.

         On October 1, 2004, Judge Feudale filed a 114-page opinion analyzing the merits of the PCRA III petition and concluding that:

(1) Despite the PCRA I Court's conclusion to the contrary, the recorded statement referred to in the omitted paragraph of the Goodwin Report did exist, and was intentionally withheld by prosecutors;
(2) Even if no recorded statement existed, Warman's intentional editing of the Goodwin Report violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963);
(3) Prosecutorial misconduct in violation of Brady occurred when, despite Judge Franks Order during the PCRA I proceedings, the entire police file was not turned over for in camera review;
(4) Solomon and Warman both committed prosecutorial misconduct and numerous Brady violations leading up to and during the Munchinski's first trial and his retrial; and
(5) Warman intentionally misled the jury during the retrial when he stated that all Bowen received in exchange for his testimony was immunity, because he was aware that Bowen also received leniency as to a number of probation and parole violations in Westmoreland County.

Munchinski v. Wilson, 694 F.3d at 323. The PCRA III court found that the evidence withheld by prosecutors was material under Brady, granted Munchinski's petition and vacated his 1986 convictions. The court concluded that Warman and Solomon engaged in serious and intentional prosecutorial misconduct. Id.

         On October 8, 2004, the Commonwealth appealed Judge Feudale's ruling, and on December 14, 2005, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania issued a nonprecedential and unsigned memorandum opinion reversing the PCRA III court. In its review of the Superior Court's reversal, the United ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.