Court Opinion

ID: 9707285
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:07:43.594431+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:30.495211
License: Public Domain

DEL SOLE, Judge,
dissenting.
I must dissent from The Majority’s affirmance of the trial court’s action in permitting Assistant District Attorney *624Charles F. Gallagher to testify concerning why Commonwealth witness Wayne Szczesniewski was not charged with any crime in relation to the murders. This testimony was permitted over objection of defense counsel, and counsel’s Motion for a Mistrial was denied. Further, I believe that the trial judge’s attempt at a cautionary instruction was inadequate to correct the prejudicial effect of the testimony.
This defendant, Stuart Szczesniewski, was charged with a double murder, and it was the prosecution’s theory that the murders stemmed from the defendant’s involvement in a large scale drug manufacturing and distribution scheme. Two other persons had been tried separately and were also convicted of these crimes. In order to connect the defendant with events on the night of the murders the Commonwealth called as a witness the defendant’s brother, Wayne. He testified in detail concerning his involvement with Stuart in the drug business. It was the Commonwealth’s theory that the murders were committed because the victims, who were drug sellers, had refused to pay for drugs that the defendants manufactured and supplied. Therefore, in order to maintain credibility for future drug deals, these victims were to be killed as an example to others who failed to pay for their supplies. While there was a substantial amount of testimony with respect to the drug operation, only the *625testimony of Wayne could link this defendant with events on the night of the murders.
During his direct examination, Wayne related that his brother directed him to meet one of the other persons involved who directed him to drive the “hit man” to the place were the murders took place. Later that evening, Wayne testified that he retrieved this person and they went back to the drug plant. On cross-examination, Wayne admitted that he was fairly sure that the murders were going to be committed the evening he drove Herbert Leitner, who was earlier convicted for shooting the victims, to the Woodbine Inn, and further admitted to involvement in the crime. (Record pp 562-563) Also, during cross-examination, it was established that Wayne was never charged in these homicides or other potential crimes in Pennsylvania. In addition it was shown that an Assistant District Attorney from Philadelphia accompanied Wayne to a court proceeding in New Jersey where he received a probationary sentence for a pending, drug-related crime. Wayne testified that no agreement existed between him and any prosecuting authority to exchange leniency for his testimony in the murder cases.
In order to rebut the obvious inference that such an agreement had been reached and to rehabilitate the witness’ credibility, the prosecution called Assistant District Attorney Charles F. Gallagher to the stand. Mr. Gallagher testified that no deal was reached with Wayne in exchange for his testimony. However, he was asked over objection why Wayne was not charged in this matter and testified:
A: Based on my review of evidence that was produced to the grand jury, that’s all the statements, not only by the Szczesniewski brothers but everyone else, it was clear that Wayne was just an employee of this so-called chemical plant which was, in fact, a drug factory. It was clear he was not involved in—
(R pp. 726-727).
A: No, no deals were ever made with Wayne Szczesniewski for his testimony. I mean deals, there were *626never any agreements made, a quid pro quo, in other words, that we would go to bat for him or that we would offer him anything for his testimony.
It was clear from the beginning when I met Wayne Szczesniewski that all he wanted to do was come forward and get this incident behind him. And there were never any deals offered to him for his testimony, nor was there any influence made by our office ... upon the Camden County Prosecutor’s Office as far as the resolution of Wayne’s cases over in Camden County ...
(R. pp. 730-731).
This testimony by the Assistant District Attorney goes far beyond rehabilitating the witness. It is in effect a statement by the Government that the witness’ testimony is true. By referring to his review of all the investigation materials at his disposal, Mr. Gallagher was placing his imprimatur on the version of events that were related by Wayne. This type of evidence has been ruled inadmissible by our courts. In Commonwealth v. Bricker, 525 Pa. 362, 581 A.2d 147, (1990), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania condemned the practice of introducing evidence that vouches for the credibility of the Commonwealth’s own witnesses. It further held that in so bolstering credibility, the Commonwealth violated the defendant’s right to a fair trial.
In Commonwealth v. Seese, 512 Pa. 439, 443-44, 517 A.2d 920 (1986), the court stated:
It is an encroachment upon the province of the jury to permit expert testimony on the issue of a witness’ credibility. [citation omitted] Indeed, to permit expert testimony for the purpose of determining the credibility of a witness “would be an invitation for the trier of fact to abdicate its responsibility to ascertain the facts relying upon the questionable premise that the expert is in a better position to make such a judgment, [citation omitted]
Seese also postulated that if expert testimony as to the veracity of distinct classes of individuals were admitted, (in this case persons involved in criminal activity), one could *627imagine experts testifying as to the veracity of the elderly, or of various ethnic groups, or persons employed in various trades or professions, etc. Such testimony, would encourage jurors to shift their focus from determining the credibility of a particular witness who testified, and instead defer to the expert’s assessment of the veracity of the class of people to which the witness belonged. Id., 512 Pa. at 444, 517 A.2d 920.
Such is the danger here, particularly when Mr. Gallagher, an Assistant District Attorney, and therefore an “expert” in prosecuting criminal suspects, gives his opinion that Wayne was being truthful in order to “get this incident behind him.”
The trial judge’s cautionary instruction was inadequate to remedy this error. That instruction advised the jury that they were not to be concerned with whether they agreed or disagreed with the prosecution’s decision not to charge Wayne with these crimes. She further stated that this witness was presented to establish that no agreement was reached with Wayne and the reason for the decision not to prosecute. Nowhere in this instruction was the jury cautioned that Mr. Gallagher’s opinion about the truth of Wayne’s statement or Mr. Gallagher’s opinion of Wayne’s involvement were to be disregarded, since they are not to be considered by the jury. By this statement I do not mean to imply that a cautionary instruction could have corrected the prejudicial effect of this testimony. I merely point out that the instruction given in this case could never have done so. Therefore, I dissent and would grant a new trial.