Opinion ID: 6358387
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Anderson's pending drug charges

Text: Brown argues that trial counsel should have cross-examined Anderson more extensively with evidence of Anderson's pending drug charges in New Jersey to demonstrate that Anderson's trial testimony was motivated by his desire to curry favor from the prosecution. Brown claims that prior to trial, New Jersey prosecutors engaged in plea negotiations with Anderson. Brown's Brief at 29. On June 6, 2005, after Brown's trial concluded, Anderson pleaded guilty to failure to make a required disposition, a reduced charge, in exchange for a probationary sentence. See PCRA Petition, Appendix, Anderson Plea Form, 6/6/2005. Brown suggests that New Jersey prosecutors offered Anderson a more lenient sentence in exchange for his cooperation in Brown's murder trial. Brown's Brief at 29-30. According to Brown, trial counsel never uncovered these details because he failed to obtain Anderson's complete criminal file from New Jersey. Id. at 30.  The PCRA court concluded that Brown's claim fails because he did not suffer prejudice. Rule 907 Notice, 4/7/2016, at 19. In support, the PCRA court reasoned that further investigation by trial counsel would not have altered the outcome of Brown's trial, as evidence of Anderson's pending charges was thoroughly elicited. Id. Further, Anderson did not officially plead guilty until after Brown's jury trial, and there was no evidence to suggest that Anderson accepted any plea agreement prior to his trial testimony. Id. at 20. The PCRA court added that it provided clear instructions to the jury as to how they should consider Anderson's pending charges. The PCRA court's conclusions are supported by the record. The record reveals that evidence of Anderson's open criminal matter in New Jersey was provided to the jury. The Commonwealth first questioned Anderson on this topic as follows: [Commonwealth]: Now, Mr. Anderson, you currently have an open arrest; correct? [Anderson]: Yes. [Commonwealth] : In New Jersey, actually? [Anderson]: Yes. [Commonwealth] : And you are - have you gone to trial yet? [Anderson]: I'm still - it's still pending right now. [Commonwealth]: Okay. And you were charged with possession of narcotics with the intent to deliver; right? [Anderson]: Yes. [Commonwealth]: Either with having enough drugs or with drug dealing; correct? [Anderson]: Yes. [Commonwealth]: And there's a conspiracy charge, too; right? [Anderson]: Yes. [Commonwealth]: Have the police in New Jersey or the police here or me or anybody from a District Attorney's Office made you any promises on that case -- [Anderson]: No. [Commonwealth]: -- in order to -- let me finish -- in order to get you to testify here today? [Anderson]: No. [Commonwealth]: As you sit here, do you expect that my office or the Philadelphia Police Department will help you beat that case or help you get a light sentence of anything like that? [Anderson]: No. [Commonwealth]: Have any written or oral deals been made with you? [Anderson]: No. N.T., 5/26/2005, at 57-58. Trial counsel then cross-examined Anderson about the pending charges: [Trial Counsel]: You ... currently have an open case in New Jersey for possession with intent to deliver narcotics; correct: [Anderson]: Yes. [Trial Counsel]: And do you know what the maximum sentence you could receive in that case is?    [Anderson]: Three to five. [Trial Counsel]: Three to five-- [Anderson]: Yes. [Trial Counsel]: - years' incarceration; correct? [Anderson]: Yes. [Trial Counsel]: Did the ... Philadelphia D.A.'s Office, by any representative, tell you that if you testified, they would help you favorably resolve your New Jersey case? [Anderson]: No.  [Trial Counsel]: Did anyone from the police tell you that? [Anderson]: No. [Trial Counsel]: Did any detective tell you that they would appear at your sentencing if you were convicted in New Jersey and inform the [c]ourt that you had cooperated in a homicide investigation in Philadelphia? [Anderson]: No. [Trial Counsel]: Never discussed that with any members of the law enforcement community? [Anderson]: No. [Trial Counsel]: Do you have a lawyer that represents you in New Jersey? [Anderson]: I have a Public Defender. [Trial Counsel]: Did you ever discuss with your Public Defender that you expected favorable treatment from the authorities in Philadelphia if you helped them prosecute this homicide case?    [Anderson]: No. Id. , at 64-66. The trial court then advised the jury as follows: Regarding that case, I will tell the jury that in my initial instruction to you or part of what the instructions are to you is that charges are only charges. You may have heard me say that to you and that just because someone is arrested, it does not mean that they are guilty of anything. The only reason that it is permitted to be brought out at all that this witness had an open case is so that the jury can evaluate for itself whether the fact that this person has this open case, were they at all testifying here in such a manner as to try to curry favor with the prosecution. Whether the prosecution had offered them anything or not, is this something that perhaps might be in their head and that that would, therefore, make them or lead them to perhaps tailor their testimony in any way. And so that's why it's brought out, so that the jury can evaluate all of that as they decide who and what to believe. Id. , at 114-15. During the jury charge, the trial court also provided the following instruction: You have heard evidence that Rahsaan Anderson has an open case in New Jersey. Whenever a prosecution witness ... may be biased in favor of the prosecution because of outstanding criminal charges within the same jurisdiction, that possible bias must be made known to the jury, as was done in this case. Even if the prosecution has made no promises on the present case or on other pending criminal matters, the law recognizes that the witness may hope for favorable treatment from the prosecutor if the witness presently testified in a way that is helpful to the prosecution. It is for you, the jury, to consider whether such bias in favor of the prosecution exists in this case regarding Rahsaan Anderson's testimony and what weight, if any, you attach to it. N.T., 5/31/2005, at 195-96. Brown contends that trial counsel's cross-examination was incomplete, as Anderson had been charged with, inter alia, five counts of intent to distribute cocaine, four carrying maximum sentences of three to five years of incarceration and the fifth carrying a maximum sentence of eighteen months. Brown's Brief at 29. Several of these charges involved drug transactions in a school zone, which carried mandatory minimum sentences. Id. Moreover, Anderson did not disclose that he had been offered a plea deal (probation in exchange for pleading guilty to a single count in the indictment). Id. Anderson formally accepted the plea offer on June 6, 2005, eleven  days after Brown's trial concluded. Id. In exchange for his plea, Anderson received two years of probation. Id. at 30. According to Brown, reasonable investigation would have led trial counsel to this additional information, which would have resulted in a more effective cross-examination of Anderson. Id. Other than speculation, Brown presented no evidence that prosecutors (either in Pennsylvania or New Jersey), offered Anderson a plea agreement in exchange for his testimony against Brown. Anderson provided his statement to police inculpating Brown on the night of the shooting, well before he was arrested and charged with crimes in New Jersey in October 2004, and his testimony (that Brown shot Crawford) remained unchanged thereafter. The PCRA court found that Brown had not demonstrated any prejudice associated with this claim, as it was brought out on direct and cross-examination that Anderson was facing drug charges - possession of narcotics, possession of narcotics with intent to deliver, and conspiracy - in New Jersey. The jury was even instructed on how to consider Anderson's open case. Rule 907 Notice, 4/7/2016, at 20-21. Because Brown fails to establish that trial counsel's alleged derelictions impacted the verdict, this claim fails.