Pennsylvania Supreme Court Orders Scrutiny for DA Krasner

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has directed Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner’s office to undergo outside scrutiny regarding post-conviction concessions. This decision arose from concerns that the office’s handling of a convicted murderer’s case was unreliable, with implications that the issues might extend beyond just this case.

Justice Kevin Dougherty, a Democrat, authored a 4-3 opinion focusing on Levar Brown, whose murder conviction sparked a broader legal controversy surrounding Krasner’s Conviction Integrity Unit. Dougherty was backed by another Democratic justice, Daniel McCaffrey, along with two Republican justices, while all dissenters were Democrats.

This ruling reversed a previous post-conviction order that awarded Brown a new trial. Krasner’s office had conceded that Brown’s conviction was flawed, prompting a Philadelphia judge’s approval for a new trial. The ruling now mandates that if the DA’s office identifies a conviction that should be overturned, the presiding judge must alert the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s office before any relief is granted, giving the AG’s office a chance to intervene.

While the ruling doesn’t shift control of the case to the state attorney general, it does introduce new checks on Krasner’s office regarding future post-conviction cases.

Interestingly, Dougherty highlighted that it’s not the prosecutors’ role to decide if a defendant is entitled to relief under the Post-Conviction Relief Act. He asserted that even if prosecutors agree with the defense, it is up to judges to make independent decisions on overturning convictions.

The court found significant unreliability in Krasner’s office’s concessions in Brown’s case, noting that relief was granted without sufficient justification from existing records. They pointed out issues like withholding crucial evidence, filing false statements, and failing to conduct proper inquiries.

The majority opinion indicated that if the problems were limited to Brown’s case, they may not warrant wider action. However, it noted that these concerns have been observed in other post-conviction instances as well.

Since 2018, the Philadelphia DA’s office has granted relief over 100 times, predominantly in murder cases, further complicating the picture, especially with more than a thousand cases still pending review.

The lawsuit originated from families of murder victims Michael Richardson and Robert Crawford, with Brown convicted of both murders two decades ago. Notably, Krasner’s office later admitted that Brown deserved a retrial without a hearing.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Dave Sunday welcomed the ruling, emphasizing his office’s role in advocating for the interests of crime victims and public safety.

Krasner has publicly condemned the ruling, describing it as an attempt to undermine democracy in Philadelphia by treating it differently than other counties. He argued that it might hinder the vote’s value and falsely asserts that the changes could improve safety and freedom in the city.

Contrary to Krasner’s arguments, the majority opinion clarified that the ruling does not diminish the DA’s prosecutorial discretion. Instead, it aims to enhance the reliability and credibility of post-conviction proceedings by involving the attorney general’s evaluation.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice David Vecht cautioned against the majority’s interference with local prosecutors’ discretion. Nevertheless, the majority maintained that the attorney general’s participation is intended to bolster the adversarial process in court before any convictions can be overturned.

As a result, Brown’s case has been sent back to Pennsylvania’s post-conviction court for further action, establishing a new framework for similar future cases involving Krasner’s office.