Harshman v. Superintendent

Decision Date26 March 2019
Docket NumberCIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-116
Parties Ronald W. HARSHMAN, Petitioner v. SUPERINTENDENT, STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT ROCKVIEW, et al., Respondents
CourtU.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania

David J. Foster, Lemoyne, PA, for Petitioner.

Jaime M. Keating, Laura J. Kerstetter, Franklin County District Attorney's Office, Chambersburg, PA, for Respondents.

MEMORANDUM

Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge

Petitioner Ronald W. Harshman ("Harshman") is serving a sentence of life imprisonment without parole for first-degree murder. He filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, seeking relief from his Pennsylvania murder conviction. Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick recommends that the court grant Harshman's Section 2254 petition. We agree with Judge Mehalchick's recommendation and will grant the writ.

I. Background 1

In 1984, Harshman's wife, Teresa Harshman ("Teresa"), began an affair with Melvin Snyder ("Snyder"), a married man who worked with Harshman. (Doc. 1 ¶ 2). Teresa and Snyder decided to leave their spouses and move to Montana together, and on June 7, 1984, Teresa informed Harshman of her intentions. (Id. ) Harshman reacted badly to this news and drove toward Snyder's home, at which point Harshman encountered Snyder en route to pick up Teresa. Commonwealth v. Harshman, No. CP-28-CR-851-2000, at 1 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. Franklin Cty. Aug. 20, 2015) [hereinafter "8/20/15 PCRA2 Op."]. Harshman crashed his vehicle into Snyder's and fired two shots from a handgun into the seat beside Snyder. Id. at 1. Snyder was unhurt but obviously quite distressed by the confrontation. Id. Harshman was charged with reckless endangerment, but Snyder convinced the state to withdraw the charges. (Doc. 1 ¶ 3).

Teresa and Snyder traveled to Montana together as planned, but returned to their respective residences and marriages a few weeks later. (Id. ¶ 4). Snyder and his wife reconciled; Harshman and Teresa did not. (Id. ) Teresa left Harshman and filed for divorce in March 1985. (Id. ) Three days after Teresa served Harshman with divorce papers, he purchased a .25 caliber handgun. (7/11/01 Trial Tr. 8:2-15, 9:1-5). Harshman made various threats against Snyder to Snyder's wife and son throughout 1984 and into 1985.

Commonwealth v. Harshman, No. 1620 MDA 2015, 2016 WL 3135797, at *1 (Pa. Super. Ct. June 3, 2016) (nonprecedential).

On May 25, 1985, approximately one year after Teresa and Snyder began their affair, Snyder disappeared. (Doc. 1 ¶ 5). Snyder's pickup truck was found two days later in Maryland with a loaded rifle in the back, keys in the ignition, and the windows rolled down. (Id. ) His wallet and checkbook were also recovered from the vehicle, which had been wiped clean of fingerprints. Harshman, 2016 WL 3135797, at *2. A search of Snyder's barn revealed signs of a disturbance. Id. A single .25 caliber shell casing discovered in the barn was turned over to the Pennsylvania State Police because Snyder did not own a .25 caliber gun. Id. Neighbors testified that, on the day Snyder went missing, they saw a two-tone brown truck parked next to the barn. Id. They then saw the same truck, which Harshman had purchased in 1984, parked at Harshman's residence. Id. In June 1985, police searched Harshman's home, finding an empty gun box and a partially empty container of .25 caliber ammunition. Id. When police asked Harshman to produce the gun, he told them that Teresa had it, but Teresa denied that assertion. Id.

Snyder was never seen or heard from again, and in 1993 was officially declared dead. (Doc. 1 ¶ 6). No body has ever been discovered. (Id. ) In the summer of 1999, the Franklin County District Attorney enlisted assistance to search the farm where Harshman and Teresa lived at the time of Snyder's disappearance.3 (Id. ¶ 7). Investigators, using metal detectors, found a single .25 caliber shell casing buried one inch below ground on the property. (Id. ) A ballistics expert determined that the shell casing was fired from the same gun as the shell casing recovered from Snyder's barn in 1985. Harshman, 2016 WL 3135797, at *2.

Harshman and Snyder's wife were arrested and charged with Snyder's murder in April 2000. Id. The charges against Snyder's wife were eventually withdrawn. Id. On July 9, 2001, Harshman began a five-day jury trial for first-degree murder. (Doc. 1 ¶ 9). Of particular importance for the instant petition, besides the above-referenced evidence, the jury heard testimony from three jailhouse informants who had been incarcerated with Harshman at the Franklin County Jail in 2000. (Id. ¶¶ 10, 88).

Randi Kohr ("Kohr") testified that while playing cards with Harshman and two other inmates, Harshman admitted that he "was with a woman and she cheated on him. He caught them and he ended up shooting him and he got rid of the body." (7/12/01 Trial Tr. 20:5-22, 21:10-13). Kohr further testified that Harshman had stated that "there would be no evidence. There's no gun, no body, no casings .... There's no evidence against me." (Id. at 29:11-15). Keith Granlun ("Granlun"), a former minister incarcerated for drunk driving and unsworn falsification to authorities, attested that Harshman had admitted that he had "murdered somebody years ago" and "wanted to know if he could be saved for that." (Id. at 40:24-41:18; Doc. 1 ¶ 15). Granlun testified that Harshman asked Granlun to go to Maryland and pray over a particular area where "somebody is buried." (7/12/01 Trial Tr. 42:10-23). Finally, Wallace Jones ("Jones") testified that he was known in jail for proficiency with legal research, and that Harshman had asked him if he could "find anything where it was known in Pennsylvania for someone to be tried for a homicide without a body ever actually being found." (Id. at 33:12-21). According to Jones, Harshman maintained that in his case, "there's no body or a gun and they won't find one." (Id. at 34:11-12).

All three jailhouse witnesses averred that they were not testifying pursuant to any deal with, or in exchange for any personal favorable treatment from, the Commonwealth. (Id. at 21:14-21, 28:9-14, 29:21-30:9 (Kohr); 38:16-24 (Jones); 49:12-50:12 (Granlun) ). Then-District Attorney for Franklin County, the late John F. Nelson, Esquire ("DA Nelson"), emphasized in his closing that "no deals" were made with the jailhouse informants, claimed that nothing was "offered" by the Commonwealth in exchange for testimony, and reviewed each witness's allegedly selfless motives for testifying. (7/13/01 Trial Tr. at 62:21-64:4). After deliberating for less than four hours, the jury convicted Harshman of first-degree murder. (Doc. 1 ¶ 17; 7/13/01 Trial Tr. 96:1-2, 104:7-8, 18-22). Harshman was sentenced the same day to a mandatory term of life in prison without parole. (Doc. 1 ¶ 17).

II. Procedural History

Harshman's state-court procedural history is both lengthy and circuitous. After his direct appeal was denied, he began his pursuit of post-conviction relief, which has been ongoing for nearly 15 years. (See Doc. 1 ¶¶ 18-21). Harshman timely filed a pro se PCRA petition in December 2004, which was amended in June 2006 by retained counsel. (Id. ¶ 21). Because of the complicated procedural course of Harshman's post-conviction process, we separately discuss the relevant portions of each PCRA opinion and appeal.

A. September 2010 PCRA Opinion and Appeal

In his amended PCRA petition, Harshman averred, inter alia , that the jailhouse informants wanted to disavow their prior trial testimony. Commonwealth v. Harshman, No. CP-28-CR-851-2000, at 4 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. Franklin Cty. Sept. 13, 2010) [hereinafter "9/13/10 PCRA Op."]. Harshman contended that Granlun had spoken with a private investigator and had fully recanted and admitted that his trial testimony was false. (Doc. 9-10 at 43). Granlun, moreover, was prepared to testify to this effect at the PCRA evidentiary hearing. (Id. ) According to Harshman, Kohr, too, had recanted his trial testimony in a signed, written statement witnessed by Harshman's PCRA counsel. (Id. at 48). This statement allegedly contained Kohr's admission that he had never spoken to Harshman in his life and had obtained details for his trial testimony from newspaper articles and conversations with other inmates. (Id. ) Kohr's statement went on to claim that "[t]he testimony I provided was absolutely false and the only reason I gave false testimony was because the District Attorney had agreed to help me obtain an early release from prison." (Id. at 49 (quoting Harshman PCRA Ex. 1) ). Kohr had also purportedly mailed letters to Harshman's PCRA counsel and Kohr's then-girlfriend, Megin Chilcote ("Chilcote"), outlining an agreement with the prosecution to provide testimony against Harshman in exchange for favorable treatment. (Id. at 49-53).

The PCRA court held evidentiary hearings on August 3, 2009, September 10, 2009, and December 14, 2009. At the August 3 hearing, Harshman presented the testimony of Walter Dill ("Dill"), Granlun's brother-in-law of 27 years. 9/13/10 PCRA Op. at 3; (8/3/09 PCRA Hr'g Tr. 25:14-21). According to counsel's proffer, Dill would testify that Granlun had directed him to contact Harshman's trial counsel, Attorney David S. Keller ("Attorney Keller"), because false testimony was going to be given at Harshman's upcoming trial. (8/3/09 PCRA Hr'g Tr. 20:5-12, 21:11-20, 22:6-10). The PCRA court, on the Commonwealth's objection, limited Dill's testimony to the fact that Granlun had told Dill to contact Attorney Keller regarding the upcoming murder trial and that Dill did as asked. (Id. at 26:7-27:2; 28:3-11). The court determined that what Granlun specifically told Dill regarding why Dill should contact Attorney Keller was more appropriate for direct testimony from Granlun. (Id. at 22:12-23:7, 27:4-11).

That testimony never came because Granlun—upon advice from appointed counsel—asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. (Id. at 56:1-60:25)...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • United States v. Coles
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • January 7, 2021
    ...testimony; and evidence of bias, prejudice, or ulterior motives affecting the witness's credibility. Harshman v. Superintendent, 368 F. Supp. 3d 776, 790 (M.D. Pa. 2019) (Conner, C.J.) (citing Kyles, 514 U.S. at 441-45, 115 S.Ct. 1555 ; Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 316, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 ......
  • Moss v. Deblaso
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • July 14, 2021
    ... CRAIG MOSS, Petitioner v. SUPERINTENDENT DEBALSO, et al., Respondents No. 1:19-cv-106 United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania July 14, 2021 ... failure to disclose the evidence, ‘the result of the ... proceeding would have been different.'” ... Harshman v. Sup't, State Corr. Institution at ... Rockview , 368 F.Supp.3d 776, 790 (M.D. Pa. 2019) ... (quoting Kyles v. Whitley , 514 U.S. 419, ... ...
  • Gagnon v. Alkermes PLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • March 28, 2019
  • Gagnon v. Alkermes PLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • July 2, 2019

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT