Court Opinion

ID: 9692913
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:12:11.9307+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:38.072827
License: Public Domain

KELLY, Judge,
concurring:
I join in the majority opinion. I write separately to explain my reasons for concluding that the prosecution’s improper statements made during its closing argument do not require a new trial.
During the course of the trial, the attorneys for the four co-defendants made liberal use of prior grand jury and trial testimony in the Craig Murphy case to develop their collective defense that: the principle Commonwealth witnesses *59were nefarious characters who were lying to cover their own involvement in the murder and to curry favor with the prosecution to gain leniency on outstanding charges; the criminal investigation had uncovered insufficient evidence to link the co-defendants to the crime; and, the present case was grounded on character assassination of the co-defendants and general reliance on guilt by association.
The tenor of the defense may be accurately gathered from their closing arguments. In her closing argument, counsel for Rodney Wells set the stage as follows:
You know exactly where he was killed and you know precisely when he was killed and you know that he was in fact killed. This is not a situation where there is a question as to suicide or an accident. You also know something that is often not known to jurors at the beginning. You know who killed him. You know that Craig Murphy killed Muscles Reynolds and another jury has already convicted Mr. Craig Murphy and so that is not a question that you even have to spend time thinking about. The only question for you, at the bottom is whether or not Craig Murphy had someone else with him. And if he did, who those other persons or who that person was. But, it’s clear, the killer was Craig Murphy.
(N.T. 12/26/85 at 7). (Emphasis added). In challenging the Commonwealth’s case, she repeatedly expressed her personal opinion that Commonwealth witnesses lied, despite objections by the prosecution and admonitions by the trial court to refrain from the improper expression of personal opinions. (N.T. 12/26/85 at 21-22, 27, 31-32, 42-43). She also argued:
Even the fact of seven gunshots doesn’t tell you, if there were seven gunshots, who if anyone was with Craig Murphy on that night.
The theory that makes the most sense is that it was Bernard. Bernard is in that car. He has to admit to you that he is in that car. Why would anybody take Bernard along just for the ride and I think that Keith Johnson *60had, a role in this too. I think that you may decide that Keith Johnson had a role in this.
(N.T. 12/26/85 at 50). (Emphasis added).
Counsel for Esau Burroughs followed-up on her arguments as follows:
Now, I want to draw your attention to a point in this that may even upset the Commonwealth when they decided they were going to pay Mr. Burroughs back for testifying in this case. [Referring to Craig Murphy’s trial]
* * * * * *
His nickname is the Devil, Okay?
Now, what does that mean? That he is from hell, [Hades]? What does that mean? I had a friend who was called Chumpy and he is about this big. I have people called Lightening who were as slow as [molasses]. I don’t know what devil means in this context.

[It’s] consistent with this theory of just putting everything that you have into this to give the worst impression that you can [possibly] give about this man and maybe they will pull him right along with everything else. That is what they are trying to do and it’s obvious.

})S * * * *
The only person who said that he had anything to do with dope was Keith Johnson. And Keith Johnson was put here to bury him. To say anything he had to say, to bury Esau Burroughs. That’s sad.
I’m arguing this case, I entered this case with a heavy heart when I found out what they were trying to do to Esau Burroughs.
* * * Si! * *
The Commonwealth took almost two years to decide to arrest Esau Burroughs in this case after having Keith Johnson’s statement that put Esau Burroughs in it. So, that has to say something to you. Either they didn’t *61believe him or they had no other information that put Esau Burroughs in this case.
(N.T. 12/26/85 at 69-70, 73, 75, 78). (Emphasis added).
Counsel for Morris Willis continued the themes set by preceding co-counsel:
Conjecture and guilt by association are not the basis upon which you arrive at your conclusion. Indeed, to base your decision on anything other than evidence from that witness stand, has no place in our system of justice.
% Sjt ÍT* * * *
Only by [innuendo] and conjecture can you conclude that Murphy called Willis.
Ladies and gentlemen, don’t allow your intelligence to be insulted by the Commonwealth.
* * * * * *
Now, there have been several grand jury proceedings about this case. A preliminary hearing and a trial. It has never been proven that Murphy was ever seen with my client that night at any time. Bear that point in mind.
# * * if. * *
Moreover, the Commonwealth has had, has presented no more evidence here, in the month of December, of 1985, than it had on September 1st of 1983, as to Morris Willis.
* * * * * *
So ladies and gentlemen, the Commonwealth is bottoming its case in part on a witness that even other Commonwealth witnesses don’t believe. That’s incredible. Quite incredible.
(N.T. 12/26/85 at 83, 85, 87, 94, 95-96). (Emphasis added).
Counsel for appellant closed defense arguments with the following:
The facts of the case, the important facts of the case focus on what happened that night. The Commonwealth, however, has attempted and I think you will use your judgement in this, in some respect to divert your atten*62tion from that and that brings us to the next category of witnesses they called. Witnesses that, for lack of a better term, I would catalog the guilty by association witness. That parade of witnesses who were called to this witness stand to say I have seen Ford Howard out there on the street from time to time with Craig Murphy. It was a parade of witnesses, that I suggest to you, would have made Senator Joe McCarthy proud.
What I say to you is, try to remember the feelings that you had as you sat here, as jurors and listened to Keith Johnson. Try to remember the mental processes that you went through as he testified and as Bernard Williams testified and Sonja Mackie testified. Go back in time and ask yourselves: as I sat here listening to them, was I laughing at them? That they were so unbelievable? Was I thinking to myself, how could anyone expect us to deal with the fate of human beings lives based on testimony such as this?
Because, I think when you do that, if you go back in time and remember your feelings, from that actual moment when they were before you, you will realize that what you said to yourselves then was no, no way.
(N.T. 12/26/85 at 110, 115). (Emphasis added).
The prosecutor then responded with the following argument:
It was rather ironic ladies and gentlemen, the tack that was taken by the defense in this case. It was ironic in the sense that very seldom does the defense put before you the fact that someone has been convicted. And they put before you that the [reputed] head of this group, Craig Murphy, had already been convicted of murder in the first degree. Now, I told you initially that I would not apologize for any of my witnesses. Thousands of words have been written, been taken down, been made exhibits. You have the final word in this trial, in this drama, this drama that the defense would have you believe, as per their opening, came from some fantasy *63world and they paraded before you testimony from two other proceedings and preliminary hearings and said this is fantasy. But, they contradict that by saying Craig Murphy has already been convicted on the testimony of the witnesses that you heard. Does that make sense?
MR. HAMILTON: Objected to, Your Honor.
MR. GREEN: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. KING: We didn’t invent these witnesses. We didn’t create them. We don’t need any new witness. We will go with what has brought us this far. And let’s talk about one down and four to go—
MR. GREEN: Objection.
MR. HAMILTON: Objection.
MR. FRANZEL: Objection.
MR. GREEN: Improper argument, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. KING: Let’s talk about one down and four to go.
Mr. Green stood up before you and asked you where was the beef. I stand here and tell you we know where the beef is____
(N.T. 12/27/85 at 6-8). Elsewhere in his closing argument, the prosecutor repeated the phrase “one down four to go” three times. (N.T. 12/27/85 at 29, 32-33, 38). There is no doubt that these remarks constituted improper argument to the extent that they suggest to the jury that another jury had convicted Craig Murphy on the same evidence. Cf. Commonwealth v. Clayton, 506 Pa. 24, 483 A.2d 1345 (1984); Commonwealth v. Beasley, 505 Pa. 279, 479 A.2d 460 (1984).
Nonetheless, the issue on appeal is not whether the remarks were improper, but whether the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that the improper remarks did not unavoidably prejudice the jury so as to require a new trial. In reviewing the trial court’s decision, we must consider the context in which the remarks were made. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 516 Pa. 527, 532, 533 A.2d 994, 997 (1987), citing Commonwealth v. Dickerson, 406 Pa. *64102, 110, 176 A.2d 421, 425 (1962). As the foregoing excerpts indicate, the challenged remarks were preceded by-closing arguments by co-defense counsel who took full advantage of the loose rein held by the trial judge over those arguments. We must also consider the trial court’s superior vantage from which to view the remarks. The trial court saw and heard the entire proceedings, including the challenged remarks; we attempt to resurrect their meaning and effect from a cold transcript. Cf. Commonwealth v. Griscavage, 512 Pa. 540, 546, 517 A.2d 1256, 1259 (1986) (recognizing the trial court’s “... unique opportunity to hear subtleties of answers and movements of witnesses and parties not viewable from the cold record”).
Upon review of the record, I do not find that the improper remarks resulted in unavoidable prejudice. The prior conviction of Craig Murphy and the testimony of various witnesses at the prior proceedings were properly presented to the jury by the co-defense counsel before the improper remarks by the prosecutor were made. Though I agree the remarks should not have been made, I have full confidence in the trial court’s conclusion that, in the peculiar context of this case, they were not such as would sweep the jury away in a tide of emotion and prejudice. Hence, I agree that no new trial is required on account of the remarks.*

 I note that as to both defense counsel and prosecutors, trial courts may impose direct contempt sanctions on offending counsel for misconduct instead of or in addition to granting motions for mistrial. The appropriateness of such sanctions in particular cases is, of course, left to the discretion of the trial courts.