[J-52-2013] 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

CASTILLE, C.J., SAYLOR, EAKIN, BAER, TODD, McCAFFERY, STEVENS, JJ. 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Appellee 

 v. 

JOHN CHARLES EICHINGER, 

 Appellant 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 657 CAP 

Appeal from the Order entered on 

04/04/2012 in the Court of Common Pleas, 

Criminal Division of Montgomery County at 

No. CP-46-CR-0002785-2005 

SUBMITTED: June 19, 2013 

CONCURRING OPINION 

MR. JUSTICE STEVENS DECIDED: December 31, 2014

I join the Majority in its entirety. I write separately to emphasize my agreement 

with the Majority’s admonishment to PCRA capital counsel, the Federal Community 

Defender Office, that the tactics employed in this case, which are designed to impede 

the already overburdened wheels of justice, cannot be tolerated. 

Simply put, those who oppose the death penalty should address their concerns 

to the legislature. Using the court system as a way to delay, obstruct, and, thus, by 

implication invalidate a law passed by duly elected senators and representatives cannot 

be characterized as proper, zealous advocacy. That is to say, “the gravity of a capital 

case does not relieve counsel of their obligation under Rule 3.1 of the Rules of 

Professional Conduct not to raise frivolous claims.” Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 612 Pa. 
333, 468, 30 A.3d 1111, 1191 (2011) (citation and footnote omitted). If change is 

desired, the proper path of action is to lobby the legislature rather than to overwhelm 

our courts with such a systematic attack on the death penalty statute. 

The record establishes that Appellant’s crimes were particularly heinous. On 

March 25, 2005, Appellant planned the murder of Heather Groves, stabbed her 

repeatedly seeking to puncture her organs, stabbed and murdered Heather’s threeyear-old daughter, who had witnessed the stabbing of her mother, and then murdered 

Heather’s sister, Lisa, to eliminate her as a witness. Not done yet, Appellant returned to 

Heather and stabbed her in the diaphragm and slit her throat, killing her. 

As described by the well-reasoned Majority, Appellant received full 

representation and due process, resulting in court-appointed counsel litigating 

numerous pre-trial and post-trial motions, a three-day death penalty phase hearing, as 

well as this Court’s examination of the proceedings, evidence, and sentence upon direct 

appeal. See Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 591 Pa. 1, 915 A.2d 1122 (2007), cert. 

denied, 552 U.S. 894 (2007). 

However, thereafter, the record reflects PCRA capital counsel raised 27 claims of 

error, which can only be described as excessive, in the amended PCRA petition. This 

resulted in 22 days of PCRA court evidentiary hearings and a 129-page PCRA court 

opinion. PCRA capital counsel has continued with this strategy on appeal to this Court 

by presenting 12 issues for our consideration, many of which are frivolous arguments, 

“which is to say arguments that cannot conceivably persuade the court[.]” Chmiel, 612 

Pa. at 468, 30 A.3d at 1190 (quotations and quotation marks omitted). 
While an attorney may have an ethical obligation to be a zealous advocate, he 

has no duty to pester the courts with frivolous arguments. In fact, an attorney does his 

client a disservice by failing to winnow out the weaker arguments and focusing on 

central, key issues, upon which his client might be granted relief. Adding weaker, 

particularly frivolous arguments, dilutes the force of the stronger ones and makes it 

difficult for a court to focus on those issues which are deserving of attention, i.e., those 

which are non-frivolous. 

Common sense dictates that, when an attorney raises an excessive number of 

issues, as occurred in this PCRA case, the motivation for so doing is to paralyze the 

court system to further personal political views. It is not hard to discern that, in such 

cases, the strategy of PCRA capital counsel is not necessarily to put forth the best legal 

arguments upon which his client may be granted relief; but rather, the strategy is to 

keep, at all costs, his client from suffering the ultimate penalty proscribed by law. Such 

personal political viewpoints, manifested in such a manner as to cause disruption and 

paralysis, have no legitimate place in our court system. 

Moreover, the public resources wasted by PCRA capital counsel’s pursuit of 

numerous frivolous claims cannot be tolerated. Substantial investigative resources, 

police officers testifying in court, and judges, along with court personnel, devoting 

precious time to the rejection of excessive frivolous claims is a basis for imposing 

sanctions upon those attorneys who violate or ignore their obligations under our Rules 

of Professional Conduct. While federally-financed lawyers, such as those who 

represented Appellant as PCRA capital counsel in this case, have the duty, like any 
attorney, to raise and pursue viable claims, they must do so within the ethical limits 

which govern all Pennsylvania lawyers. 

 In the case sub judice, Appellant committed his brutal murders more than nine 

years from the date of this writing; however, and despite the fact that a jury made the 

agonizing decision to sentence Appellant under the death penalty laws, this case 

illustrates the administration of justice is more often than not paralyzed by what the 

Majority accurately calls “predictable tactics.” Due, in part, to PCRA capital counsel’s 

dysfunctional strategies, the families of the victims become yet another victim to 

Appellant’s brutal crimes. As Chief Justice Castille eloquently stated in his Concurring 

Opinion in Commonwealth v. Spotz, 610 Pa. 17, 170, 18 A.3d 244, 335 (2011): “[T]his 

Court is not obliged to indulge political tactics that seek to dismantle or impede 

governing law. The difference of death does not mean that any and all tactics in pursuit 

of the defeat of capital judgment are legitimate.” 

Mr. Chief Justice Castille joins this concurring opinion.