A divided Pennsylvania Supreme Court, including two Democrat justices, ordered Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner’s office to face new outside scrutiny over its post-conviction concessions after the state’s high court found the office’s handling of one convicted murderer’s case was unreliable and said similar problems extended beyond just that single case.
Justice Kevin Dougherty, a Democrat, wrote the 4-3 opinion in the case of Levar Brown, a Philadelphia man whose murder convictions became the centerpiece of a broader legal fight over Krasner’s Conviction Integrity Unit and the office’s willingness to concede relief in serious criminal cases. Dougherty was joined by Justice Daniel McCaffery, another Democrat judge on the state’s Supreme Court, and two other Republican judges. The dissenters were all Democrats.
The 4-3 decision reversed a Philadelphia post-conviction order granting Brown a new trial after Krasner’s office conceded his conviction should not stand and a Philadelphia judge approved the request. It also ordered that, going forward, Philadelphia judges handling post-conviction challenges must notify the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General and allow the office to intervene before granting relief in any case where Krasner’s office concedes that a conviction should be overturned.
The ruling stops short of handing control of the cases to the state attorney general, but it creates a new court-ordered check on Krasner’s office in future post-conviction matters.
FETTERMAN TELLS PHILADELPHIA DA TO ‘LIGHTEN UP, FRANCIS’ AFTER HEATED ICE REMARKS
“The prosecutor does not decide whether a defendant is entitled to relief under the Post Conviction Relief Act,” Dougherty wrote for the majority, emphasizing that a judge must independently determine whether a conviction should be overturned even when prosecutors agree with the defense.
The majority concluded that Krasner’s office’s concession in Brown’s case “was not reliable,” finding that Krasner’s office conceded relief when it was not warranted by the existing record, withheld material evidence from the court, submitted a false stipulation of fact, misstated facts in its pleadings, failed to conduct a reasonable investigation and opposed a required evidentiary hearing.
The court suggested that if its concerns in the Brown case were confined to just that case alone, it would not have justified a broader remedy. But the majority opinion said the concerns were evident in other post-conviction cases as well.
PHILLY DA’S ‘HUNT YOU DOWN’ WARNING TO ICE DRAWS CALLS FOR DOJ CRIMINAL PROBE
Since 2018, the Philadelphia DA’s office has conceded relief “well over 100 times,” mostly in murder cases, according to the opinion. The court also said there are apparently more than 1,000 cases still waiting to be reviewed by the office’s Conviction Integrity Unit.
The case was brought to the high court by family members of murder victims Michael Richardson and Robert Crawford. Brown was convicted by a Philadelphia jury in the 2004 murder of Richardson and convicted by another Philadelphia jury in the 2005 murder of Crawford, according to the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office.
Two decades later, Krasner’s office conceded that Brown should receive a new trial and argued that relief was due without an evidentiary hearing, the attorney general’s office said.
Pennsylvania Attorney General Dave Sunday praised the ruling, saying his office will now be able to serve as a check on the process for Philadelphia residents and victims’ families.
“As prosecutors, our role is to advocate for victims of crime, for public safety, and for justice,” Sunday said in a statement. “Centuries of experience teach that the best way to achieve that justice is through the adversarial process, with vigorous representation for both sides.”
PHILADELPHIA DA GOES INTO TIRADE ABOUT ‘FASCIST’ TRUMP, ‘HITLER’ WHEN CONFRONTED AT PARK IN VIRAL VIDEO
Sunday’s office said the court concluded the Philadelphia DA’s concession in Brown’s case was “not reliable” and “recognized that similar concessions in numerous other cases also appeared to be unreliable.”
“The Court directed judges to notify the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General of any concessions before granting relief, and to permit the Office of Attorney General to intervene in future cases where the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office attempts to concede a conviction,” the office said.
In a statement to Fox News Digital, the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office said it is still assessing what the ruling will mean for its workload, budget and personnel.
“We are assessing what yesterday’s Supreme Court of Pennsylvania order will mean for our office’s workload and what impacts it may have on our budget and our personnel,” the OAG Press Team said. “Given the many unknowns involved, including the number of cases concessions will be made in and our response to those concessions, it may be difficult to fully assess these impacts until the process truly begins.”
The office added that it appreciates the court allowing the AG’s office to “serve as a check on this process for the citizens of Philadelphia and ensure that the interests of victims’ families are represented.”
SOROS-BACKED DA KRASNER THREATENS ICE AGENTS AT PHILLY AIRPORT: ‘I WILL PUT YOU IN HANDCUFFS’
Krasner’s office did not respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment. But Krasner posted a video response online defending his reform agenda and attacking the ruling as an anti-democratic move that treats Philadelphia differently from other counties.
The video featured images of civil rights icons Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. as Krasner framed criminal justice reform as part of a broader social justice movement.
“Reform can be scary to those who need it,” Krasner said in the video. “Which part don’t you like? The safety or the freedom?”
Krasner said Philadelphia has not had better numbers for “safety” or “freedom” in his lifetime and argued that critics are fighting a national criminal justice reform movement.
“The truth is that criminal justice reform is a national social justice movement,” Krasner said. “And like all other social justice movements, it follows a certain pattern. First they ignore you. We’re past it. Then they laugh at you. We’re past that. Then they fight you. And we have been fighting for eight and a half years. And then the next step – we got to get there – is you win.”
Krasner said the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in a “close decision,” ruled that when his office supports a defense position that someone deserves a new trial or release from custody, “we need to have the attorney general’s office looking over our shoulder unlike every other county.”
“Does that help democracy? No,” Krasner said. “It actually undermines the value of a vote in Philadelphia as compared to every other county.”
The majority opinion, however, said the order does not strip Krasner’s office of prosecutorial discretion. Instead, the court said the DA’s office remains free to litigate cases as it sees fit, but that the attorney general’s independent assessment and participation will “enhance the reliability” of post-conviction proceedings and their subsequent decisions.
In dissent, Justice David Wecht warned that the majority was injecting the attorney general into local post-conviction proceedings and interfering with the discretion of Philadelphia’s elected prosecutor. But the majority rejected that argument, saying the attorney general’s role would not override the DA’s discretion and would instead give courts the benefit of an adversarial process before convictions are overturned.
The ruling sends Brown’s case back to the Pennsylvania post-conviction court for further proceedings and sets a new process for future cases where Krasner’s office seeks to concede relief.
