Haskell v. Folino
| Decision Date | 20 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | C.A.No. 1:10-cv-149 |
| Citation | 461 F.Supp.3d 202 |
| Parties | Vance HASKELL, Petitioner v. Louis FOLINO, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
Christopher B. Brown, Elisa A. Long, Federal Public Defender's Office, Pittsburgh, PA, for Petitioner.
Mary Lynch Friedline, Governor's Office of General Counsel Department of Corrections, Somerset, PA, for Respondent The Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania.
Jessica Reger, Lisa Renee Ferrick, Molly W. Anglin, Office of the District Attorney of Erie County, Erie, PA, for Respondent District Attorney for Erie County.
Re: Motion for Relief of Judgment ECF No. 86
The Writ of Habeas Corpus is one of our nation's "most precious and most fought over principles of justice." Albert S. Glass, Historical Aspects of Habeas Corpus , 9 St. John L. Rev. 55 (1934). Justice Story called it "the Great Writ," noting that "the English Habeas Corpus Act (31 Car. 2, c. 2) ‘has been, in substance, incorporated into the jurisprudence of every state in the Union; and the right to it has been secured in most, if not in all, of the state constitutions by a provision, similar to that existing in the constitution of the United States.’ " 3 J. Story, of the United States § 1333 (1833) citing State ex rel. McBride v. Superior Court for King County , 103 Wash. 409, 417, 174 P. 973, 976 (Wash. 1918). See also Blackstone, William [1768], Commentaries on the Laws of England: A facsimile of the first edition of 1765–1769. 3 Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (1979), pp. 129–137. The writ lies to ascertain whether a "sufficient ground of detention appears." I.N.S. v. St. Cyr , 533 U.S. 289, 121 S.Ct. 2271, 150 L.Ed.2d 347 (2001) citing Commentaries on the Constitution , supra. at 203. The purpose of a habeas corpus petition is to challenge the fact of a criminal conviction or the duration of a sentence and its function in order to secure release from illegal custody. Peterson v. Clark , 2019 WL 1956925, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 27, 2019), report and recommendation adopted , 2019 WL 1953314 (W.D. Pa. May 2, 2019) citing Keitel v. Mazurkiewicz , 729 F.3d 278, 280 (3d Cir. 2013). See also Preiser v. Rodriguez , 411 U.S. 475, 484, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973) (); Barry v. Brower , 864 F.2d 294, 296 (3d Cir. 1988) (); Mehl v. Warden of SCI Smithfield , 2020 WL 2217263, at *2 (M.D. Pa. May 7, 2020) ().
In this case, the Court has serious concerns that the Commonwealth has diminished the importance of the Writ through its delay, inattention, and deflection—intentional or otherwise. The Court simply cannot ignore the disregard for the fundamental precepts of justice and fair play on display here. Almost three years ago, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted a writ of habeas corpus to the petitioner, Vance Haskell (Haskell). See Haskell v. Superintendent Greene SCI , 866 F.3d 139 (3d Cir. 2017). But through a series of unnecessary delays and unforced errors, the granting of the writ has yet to afford Haskell the remedy it contemplated for his unconstitutional conviction: a new trial or release. See id. This case has now become a paradigmatic example of the well-trod principle "justice delayed is justice denied." Burkett v. Cunningham, 826 F.2d 1208, 1218 (3d Cir. 1987). For the reasons that follow, the Court orders the Respondents to immediately release Haskell from confinement.
In September 1998, Mr. Haskell was convicted of the first-degree murder of Darrell Cooley in Jethroe's Tavern in Erie, Pennsylvania in 1994. Over forty witnesses testified at the trial, including four eyewitnesses, one of whom was Antoinette Blue who was facing criminal charges in another county. Mr. Haskell was sentenced to life in prison. Despite his conviction, Mr. Haskell has always maintained his innocence.
On August 1, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals found that Mr. Haskell's due process rights had been violated by the District Attorney's Office during his trial. The Court of Appeals reversed this Court's prior dismissal of a petition for writ of habeas corpus and granted Haskell the writ:
Haskell v. Superintendent Greene SCI , 866 F.3d 139, 152 (3d Cir. 2017) (internal citations omitted). See also ECF No. 64. In granting the writ, the Third Circuit pointedly determined that the District Attorney's Office knowingly presented false testimony by a key witness and then later vouched for the credibility of that witness in closing argument. Id. at 143-146. The Third Circuit rejected a request by the Commonwealth for rehearing en banc.
Significantly, on remand the Court of Appeals did not instruct this Court to reconsider any arguments or legal theories or to conduct an evidentiary hearing. Instead, the Circuit directed that this Court grant the writ of habeas corpus. On September 14, 2017, the Court of Appeals’ mandate issued thereby returning the matter to the jurisdiction of this Court. ECF No. 65.
Three days later, this Court issued an order granting a conditional writ and specifically directing that:
ECF No. 66.1 Under this order, Haskell was to have been retried or released by March 17, 2018.
The Commonwealth did nothing for ninety days. Cm. Pleas Ct. Docket.2 Then, in December 22, 2017, the Court of Common Pleas appointed Nathaniel Strasser, Esq. to represent Haskell and it set a status conference for December 28, 2017. Id. at 16.
On February 14, 2018, the Court of Common Pleas scheduled Haskell's criminal trial. By this point, 150 of the 180 days had passed. Haskell's retrial was scheduled for March 16, 2018 – one day before the expiration of this Court's stay of the writ. Id.
The deck was not yet cleared for trial, however. A week after setting the case for a re-trial. Haskell alerted the Common Pleas Court of a conflict of interest: Attorney Strasser, during previous employment with the District Attorney's Office, had represented the Commonwealth in its opposition to Haskell's petition for post-conviction relief and thus could not ethically represent him. Id. at 17. Alison Scarpitti, Esq. was appointed to represent Haskell. Id. A few days later, another conflict came to light. On February 27, 2018, Attorney Scarpitti discovered that the judge assigned to retry Haskell, the Honorable William J. Cunningham, had been the District Attorney at the time of the underlying crime and subsequent investigation. Id. One week before the retrial was set to begin, Attorney Scarpitti filed a motion to recuse Judge Cunningham based on this apparent conflict. Id.
Although the trial was scheduled for twenty-two days after the appointment of Attorney Scarpitti, the District Attorney's office did not exchange discovery materials with her until March 2, 2018, giving her just two weeks to prepare for trial. This initial disclosure comprised more than one hundred and sixty documents.
Four days before retrial was set to begin and five days before the conditional writ was to expire, Judge Cunningham held a status conference in which he instructed Attorney Scarpitti to file a written motion to continue if she would not be prepared for the March 16th trial. Attorney Scarpitti expressed concern to the court that the delay of the trial would be attributed to Haskell and not to the District Attorney's Office. She faulted the District Attorney's Office for not taking any action for over 90 days of this Court's 180-day time period, and for not recognizing the Common Pleas Court appointed a former Assistant District Attorney to represent Haskell. Incredibly, despite the delay of its own making, the Commonwealth now announced that it was ready for trial and would oppose any defense request to continue the proceedings. The following day...
To continue reading
Request your trial