HARRISBURG – Attorney General Dave Sunday issued the following statement on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s ruling in the Lavar Brown case.
A Philadelphia jury found Brown guilty of the murder of Michael Richardson in 2004. In 2005, another Philadelphia jury found Brown guilty of the murder of Robert Crawford. Two decades later, the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office conceded that the relief of a new trial was appropriate and insisted that such relief was due without an evidentiary hearing.
Appealing to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s King’s Bench jurisdiction, the families of Michael Richardson and Robert Crawford sought appellate review of the concession here and of concessions in other Philadelphia cases. The Office of Attorney General submitted an amicus briefing supporting the families and later argued in support of the amicus at the request of the court.
“As prosecutors, our role is to advocate for victims of crime, for public safety, and for justice,” said Attorney General Sunday. “Centuries of experience teach that the best way to achieve that justice is through the adversarial process, with vigorous representation for both sides.
“Our communities deserve a fair and just process for post-conviction review that adheres to the rule of law. We are hopeful that the Richardson and Crawford families are heartened with this ruling from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and thank them for their advocacy for their loved ones. We appreciate the Court allowing the Office of Attorney General to serve as a check on this process for the citizens of Philadelphia and ensure that the interests of victims’ families are represented,” Concluded Attorney General Sunday.
Today, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted the relief sought by the families, concluding that the concession submitted by the district attorney’s office was not reliable. The Court recognized that similar concessions in numerous other cases also appeared to be unreliable. As a result, 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.
On occasion, thorough investigation reveals that a defendant may have been erroneously convicted, and the conviction should be overturned. In these cases, prosecutors have a duty to engage in a process known as a Post-Conviction Relief Act proceeding, commonly referred to as a PCRA court. Prosecutorial offices then must determine whether to defend the conviction or make concessions and vacate the conviction. As the Court noted, this case is about the failure of the process in Philadelphia, both as to this defendant and many others.
# # #