Opinion ID: 2319241
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence of Appellant's Guilty Plea to the Nicholls Homicide

Text: As the majority indicates, the federal district court directed that Appellant be discharged from custody, unless the common pleas court held a resentencing hearing at which evidence of his Indiana County guilty plea [in the matter of the killing of William Nichol[s] is excluded. Majority Opinion, at 879 (citation omitted)). As the majority further explains, the federal court order does not, on its face, link the preclusion of evidence of Appellant's guilty plea to the Nichols homicide to an attempt by the Commonwealth to establish aggravating factors[.] Majority Opinion, at 880. Thus, it is very troublesome to me that, in a 30-year-old capital litigation on resentencing per a federal court order, the Commonwealth would attempt (successfully) to do what the federal order said it could not, thus placing any ensuing death verdict at substantial risk on further federal review. The Commonwealth's case for death encompassed compelling aggravation without the need to bring the compliance with the federal mandate into question. The Commonwealth's desire to impose capital punishment on Appellant for the heinous killing spree in which he participated (and, indeed, appears from the record to have led) is quite understandable. It also must be appreciated, however, that there are substantial downsides to a no-stones-unturned approach to death-penalty prosecution, for example, in terms of risk, delay, and uncertainty. It is my considered perspective that the Commonwealth should take a more conservative approach in these cases to minimize such factors in the multiple layers of close scrutiny ensuing upon issuance of a death verdict. With respect to the present case, I reiterate that a very strong case for death was put forth without recourse to the guilty plea and/or conviction pertaining to the killing of Mr. Nichols. My vote to join in the result relative to this claim derives from the fact that there is at least some degree of ambiguity as to the intent of the federal order, given the federal magistrate's footnoted pronouncement relied upon by the majority, see Majority Opinion, at 880, [3] and the analysis of the federal mandate is peculiarly a federal concern, particularly since the matter previously was exhausted in the Pennsylvania state court system.