Written by Ben Allen, General Assignment Reporter | Jul 25, 2014 3:14 PM
Photo by AP Photo/handout via York Daily Record
(Harrisburg) — Governor Corbett has taken the final step to send a man convicted of murder to the death chamber.
Corbett signed an execution warrant for Hubert Lester Michael Jr. for the second time Thursday.
It’s the fourth time an execution warrant for the man has been signed.
Michael Jr. was convicted of killing a 16 year old girl he picked up on the side of the road in York County in 1993.
He reportedly raped Trista Eng before placing a bag over her head and shooting her three times.
Appeals helped Michael Jr. avoid lethal injection in the past.
The execution is scheduled for September 22nd at Rockview state prison near State College.
The House meets on August 4, then recesses until September 15. The Senate returns to session on September 15.
Senators Casey and Toomey introduce four nominees to Federal Bench
In a U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Thursday, U.S. Senator Bob Casey (D-Pa.) and U.S. Senator Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) introduced Wendy Beetlestone, Mark Kearney, Jay Leeson and Jerry Pappert — as U.S. District judicial nominees for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. President Obama nominated these judges upon the joint recommendation of Sens. Casey and Toomey.
Background on nominees
– Wendy Beetlestone: Wendy Beetlestone is a shareholder at the law firm Hangley Aronchick Segal & Pudlin in Philadelphia. She previously served as the General Counsel to the School District of Philadelphia. Ms. Beetlestone received her undergraduate degree from Liverpool University and law degree from the University of Pennsylvania. Ms. Beetlestone is also a Trustee of Philadelphia University and a member of the board of the Education Law Association.
– Mark Kearney: Mark Kearney is a managing shareholder at Elliot Greenleaf & Siedzikowski, P.C. in Blue Bell. Born in Philadelphia, Mr. Kearney received both his undergraduate degree and his law degree from Villanova University. Mr. Kearney currently serves as the President of the Pennsylvania Bar Institute. He is also on the Board of Consultors to Villanova Law School and is on the board of directors of Legal Aid of Southeastern Pennsylvania.
– Jay Leeson: Jay Leeson has been a partner at Leeson & Leeson in Bethlehem since 1980. He was the Bethlehem City Solicitor from 1998 to 2004 and he served as a member of the Bethlehem City Council from 2004 to 2010. Born in Allentown, Mr. Leeson received his undergraduate degree from DeSales University and his law degree from Catholic University School of Law.
– Gerald Pappert: Gerald “Jerry” Pappert is a partner at the Cozen O’Connor law firm in Philadelphia. He is a former Attorney General of Pennsylvania. He received his undergraduate degree from Villanova University and his law degree from the University of Notre Dame Law School. Mr. Pappert is also the chairman of the Pennsylvania Banking & Securities Commission.
By Burt Rose
Click for Opinion
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has issued a ruling in the case of COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Dennis L. PRENDES, Appellant, No. 277 EDA 2013, 2014 WL 3586262, 2014 PA Super 151 (July 22, 2014), an appeal from a Judgment of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County, CP–48–CR–0001246–2012. The Panel was composed of Judges GANTMAN, SHOGAN and PLATT. Judge Gantman wrote the Opinion for the Panel.
This Appellant pled guilty to indecent assault of a person under thirteen years old, endangering the welfare of children, and corruption of minors. At the plea colloquy, the trial judge asked the Appellant, “Did you touch [S.P.'s] vagina for the purpose of arousing sexual desire to yourself? The Appellant replied in the affirmative. On appeal, the Appellant challenged his SVP status as being based on inadmissible hearsay.
Given that an SVP hearing is not a trial and the primary purpose of the SVP registration requirements is to protect the public, not to punish the offender, the Commonwealth had only to prove Appellant was subject to SVP status by clear and convincing evidence. A SOAB expert’s opinion may be based on facts or data that the expert has been made aware of or personally observed so long as experts in the particular field reasonably rely on those kinds of facts or data in forming an opinion on the subject. The facts or data consulted need not be admissible for the expert’s opinion to be admitted.
The SOAB expert here, Dr. Valliere, stated unequivocally that Appellant met SVP classification based solely on the facts and admissions contained in the guilty plea colloquy, which established that Appellant had committed and been convicted of a sexually violent offense and had the mental abnormality of pedophilia. Dr. Valliere attested she had reviewed and relied on numerous written records as part of her assessment, including the arrest warrant, affidavit of probable cause, police reports, charge sheet, statements by the victim, and confirmed that these records are ones typically relied on in SOAB evaluations. Such facts or data consulted need not be admissible or proved beyond a reasonable doubt in order to find the expert opinion admissible. Therefore, the Court held that the SVP ruling would be affirmed.
By Burt Rose
Click for Opinion
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has ruled in the expungment case of COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant v. Mark WALLACE, Appellee, 2014 WL 3579692 (7/21/14), a Philadelphia case before Judge Frank Palumbo.
The Court was called upon to decide the question of whether the Superior Court had erred in reversing the lower court and holding that an inmate has a right to petition for expungment. Commonwealth v. Wallace, 45 A.3d 446 (Pa.Super.2012). The issue was: “Did the Superior Court err by holding that an incarcerated career criminal has a due process right to a hearing at which the trial court must determine-on a charge by charge basis-whether over a hundred prior criminal charges against him should be expunged?”
The Supreme Court, in a unanimous Opinion written by Justice Stevens, found that due process does not guarantee this right to an inmate while still incarcerated. The Court noted that because the Appellee’s criminal record is so vast, it is unlikely that he will face specific negative repercussions based on the existence of the remainder of his record that he wants to expunge, while the Commonwealth has legitimate concerns about retaining this inmate’s complete record.
Kevin Martin becomes emotional while talking to reporters after leaving the D.C. Superior courthouse on Monday after being exonerated for a crime he didn’t commit. (Bill O’Leary/The Washington Post)
Click for full report from the Washington Post
By Keith L. Alexander and Spencer S. Hsu July 21 at 11:34 AM
A D.C. Superior Court judge concluded Monday that DNA evidence exonerates a man who spent 26 years in prison for the 1982 rape and murder of a Washington woman.
Kevin Martin’s case marks the fifth time in as many years that federal prosecutors in D.C. acknowledged that errors by an elite FBI forensic unit have led to a wrongful conviction.
The House returns to session on August 4. The House and Senate resume session on September 15.
July 23– House Judiciary Committee holds a hearing on PA Fingerprint Reporting. Room 140. 10:00.
PA Legal Aid Fund Benefits Needy In PA
PA Corrections Work Example For The Nation
PA Supreme Court issues updated guide for child dependency cases
Click to news item on Supreme Court website
Source: Crisci Associates PA Capitol Digest
A Federal judge’s ruling that California’s death penalty is unconstitutional was described by legal experts Wednesday as stunning and unprecedented.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney found that decades-long delays and uncertainty about whether condemned inmates will ever be executed violate the constitution’s ban on cruel or unusual punishment.
Click for full report from Los Angeles Times and link to Opinion