Commonwealth v. Williams
| Decision Date | 19 July 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 695 CAP,No. 694 CAP ,694 CAP |
| Citation | 141 A.3d 440 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant v. Christopher WILLIAMS, Appellee. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Christopher Williams, Appellant. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Hugh J. Burns Jr., Esq., Philadelphia, Mary L. Huber, Esq., Susan Elena Willcox, Esq., Philadelphia District Attorney's Office, Amy Zapp, Esq., PA Office of Attorney General, for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Victor J. Abreu, Jr., Esq., Federal Public Defender's Office, Stuart Brian Lev, Esq., Federal Community Defender Office for the Eastern District of PA, for Christopher Williams.
Justice Donohue delivers the Opinion of the Court, joined by Justices Baer, Todd and Wecht, except in the treatment of the claim premised upon the post-conviction testimony of Charles Wetli, MD, as to which Justice Donohue issues an opinion joined by Justices Baer and Todd. Justice Wecht files a concurring opinion concerning the treatment of the claim involving Dr. Wetli. Chief Justice Saylor files a concurring opinion, in which Justice Dougherty joins.
.
Pending before the Court are two appeals from the order entered in this capital case by the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas granting Christopher Williams (“Williams”) a new trial pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541
–9546 (“PCRA”).1 The first, filed by the Commonwealth, challenges the grant of relief on both substantive and procedural grounds. The second, filed by Williams, is a protective cross-appeal challenging various unfavorable determinations made by the PCRA court on other claims he raised in his PCRA petitions. After careful review, we conclude that the record and the law support the PCRA court's findings that direct appeal counsel rendered ineffective assistance to Williams, and therefore affirm.
In the summer of 1993, Williams and two codefendants, Theopolis Wilson (also referred to as “Binky” at trial) and Rick Bennett, appeared before a jury, each facing numerous charges related to the shooting deaths of Philadelphia cabdriver William Graham and three young men from New York—Otis Reynolds, Gavin Anderson and Kevin Anderson.2 James White, a purported eyewitness and accomplice to the murders, testified that Reynolds and the Anderson brothers were in Philadelphia to purchase two AK–47s from Williams. According to White, Williams was the leader of a gang that sold drugs and guns; White was a junior member. N.T., 7/26/1993, at 13, 50–51. Unbeknownst to the victims, the arms deal was a ruse, and Williams planned to rob them when they met. Id. at 50. White testified that he stole a dark colored van at Williams' request to aid in the robbery plan. Id. at 49–50. Williams had a duffle bag full of guns stashed in a closet at his girlfriend's house, which he passed out to the members of his gang participating in the robbery. Williams gave White a shotgun, Bennett a .357 automatic weapon and kept for himself what White described as an “[uzi] type of handgun,” as well as the .9 millimeter gun he “always” carried. Id. at 53–54.
According to White, on September 25, 1989, shortly after the victims arrived at the designated location for the sham gun sale, Williams, Wilson, Bennett, White and other members of the gang reportedly held them at gunpoint and demanded money. Id. at 56–57. Upon receiving from one of the victims the $2400 brought to make the gun purchase, Williams continued to demand more money. Id. at 57–58. One of the three victims ultimately confessed that there was more money at another location, prompting Williams, Bennett and a third person, known to White only as “Steve,” to take that victim in the stolen van to obtain the money, leaving White, Wilson and a third gang member (whose name White did not know) to guard the remaining two victims.3 Id. at 59–60.
White testified that Williams and his cohorts returned approximately thirty minutes later without the victim they had taken with them. Id. at 60–61. When White inquired about the missing victim, Bennett allegedly informed him that Williams shot the victim in the head. Id. at 62.
Upon his return, Williams demanded more money from the two remaining victims, and they responded that there was none. Id. at 62–63. Williams instructed Wilson and Steve to “get a Cadillac,” while Williams, White, Bennett, the other, unnamed gang member and the two victims got into the stolen van. Id. at 63. The unnamed gang member drove the van, White rode in the front seat and Williams and Bennett rode in the cargo area with the two victims. Id.
According to White's testimony, the van followed behind the Cadillac through and around Philadelphia while Williams and Bennett continued to interrogate the victims about money. Id. at 63–64. The victims repeatedly denied the existence of additional money. Id. at 64. White then allegedly observed Williams pull out his gun and shoot one of the victims “in the face” two or three times while “[t]he man was looking directly at [ ] Williams[.]” Id. In a statement given to police about the murders, White specified that the second victim (the first of the two victims shot in the van) was “the smallest guy” and that Williams shot him while he looked at both Williams and Williams' gun. Trial Exhibit D–10 (Interview of James White, 11/4/1991).4 The victim slumped over in the van. A short time later, the van slowed (but did not stop), and Bennett and Williams “threw,” “tossed,” or “pushed” him out of the van onto the street. N.T., 7/26/1993, at 65, 202–03, 207, 266, 274. Although his description of how this victim was removed from the van was not entirely consistent, White agreed with the characterization by Bennett's defense counsel that “one had [the victim's] hands and one had his legs and they just threw him out into the street”; they “[f]ired him right out the back.” Id. at 274–75.
White testified that he then observed Williams put his gun to the face of the third victim. White turned away, hearing two gun shots and the back of the van open. Id. at 66. When White turned back, the third victim was gone. Id. White presumed that, like the second victim, Williams and Bennett threw the third victim out of the van. Id. Williams was unsure whether the van ever traveled onto the sidewalk, but he testified, without qualification, that the van remained on the street and was moving when the second victim was thrown from the van. Id. at 202–03, 304.
A police witness testified that he responded to the location of Reynolds' body, on a cobblestone driveway in a residential neighborhood, in the early morning hours of September 26, 1989. N.T., 7/22/1993, at 110–11. Reynolds was on his back, with his feet on the curb and his head pointed away from the street, his head resting on a bandana or kerchief, which, according to the witness, appeared to have originally been around Reynolds' head or neck. Id. at 111–12, 119. He had sustained two gunshot wounds
to the left side of his face near his left ear, approximately three quarters of an inch apart. N.T., 7/28/1993, at 146–47.
At 7:22 a.m. the same day, police were notified about the discovery of Kevin Anderson's body, located approximately a mile and a half away from Reynolds, lying face down on the sidewalk. N.T., 7/22/1993, at 122, 125–26. He had been shot twice—once in the back of the head, once on the left side of his head. N.T., 7/29/1993, at 5.
A couple of hours later, police came to the location of Gavin Anderson's body, located approximately a half mile from his brother, lying on his stomach in a parking area about fifteen feet away from the street. N.T., 7/22/1993, at 130, 135. He had been shot three times—in the right cheek, the right temple, and the back of the neck. Id. at 131; N.T., 7/28/1993, at 150–51.
Apart from a healing gunshot wound
observed on Gavin Anderson that predated his death, none of the victims had any other injuries on their bodies. Id. at 150, 154; N.T., 7/29/1993, at 7–8. Dr. Paul J. Hoyer, Assistant Medical Examiner for Philadelphia, testified that whether a person would sustain additional injuries (scrapes, bruises, abrasions, contusions) resulting from a fall after a shooting would depend on the type of surface upon which the person fell, the speed at which they were traveling (e.g., if they were running at the time they were shot), and whether the surface was wet or dry. N.T., 7/28/1993, at 157. If a person was running when shot, for example, Dr. Hoyer stated that he would expect to see abrasions on the body from the fall. Id. at 164. According to Dr. Hoyer, the absence of non-gunshot injuries on a body that fell after being shot means only that the body “did not fall against a hard surface with a lot of force.” Id. at 162. The trial court precluded defense counsel from posing a hypothetical question regarding whether Dr. Hoyer would expect to see additional injuries to a body that was thrown or pushed onto concrete from a moving van after being shot. Id. at 161–67. According to the trial court, there were “too many variables” to allow Dr. Hoyer to answer that question. Id. at 163.
Dr. Ian Hood, Deputy Medical Examiner for Philadelphia, testified that it is not uncommon for a person who is shot and killed while standing to sustain minor abrasions, bruises or lacerations on his “bony prominences” when he collapses or falls. N.T., 7/29/1993, at 23–24. Dr. Hood testified, however, that the absence of such injuries did not mean that the victim did not fall. Id. at 24. The third Commonwealth expert, Dr. Hygow Park (the Assistant Medical Examiner for Philadelphia who performed the autopsy of Kevin Anderson), was not asked any questions on this subject.
On August 6, 1993, the jury convicted Williams of three counts of first-degree murder and related offenses for which he received three consecutive death sentences.5 Trial counsel, Lee Mandell, Esquire, filed a ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Clancy
...factual findings are supported by the record, and whether its conclusions of law are free from legal error. Commonwealth v. Williams , 636 Pa. 105, 141 A.3d 440, 452 (2016). Our scope of review is limited to the findings of the PCRA court and the evidence of record, viewed in the light most......
-
Com. of Pa. v. Diaz
...such presumptions attach only to the reasonable strategic basis prong as opposed to the prejudice prong. See Commonwealth v. Williams , 636 Pa. 105, 141 A.3d 440, 460, n.18 (2016) (assessing prejudice in light of expert testimony presented at PCRA hearing but not foreclosing possibility tha......
-
Houser v. Zaken
... ... during the PCRA proceedings. On July 28, 2016, Attorney Aston ... filed a no-merit letter pursuant to Commonwealth v ... Turner , 544 A.2d 213 (Pa. 1988) and Commonwealth v ... Finley , 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988), to which Houser ... filed ... adjudication of the claim at issue was “contrary ... to” that law. Williams, 529 U.S. at 404-05 ... (explaining that the “contrary to” and ... “unreasonable application of” clauses of § ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Robinson
...means that "the uncalled witnesses’ testimony would have been beneficial under the circumstances of the case." Commonwealth v. Williams , 636 Pa. 105, 141 A.3d 440, 460 (2016) (quoting Commonwealth v. Sneed , 616 Pa. 1, 45 A.3d 1096, 1109 (2012) ). Thus, if the proposed testimony "would hav......