-ll. - u ~U:; :e UJ < .. :5zn ,..._ U) uo> ,_ =-- 0 ~ a u.:1"...>...j> 0~.-?:: ' U-!:L...J --1

Transcription

1 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYL V ANlA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, v. ABDULAJ.ruCHARDSON Defendant CRIMINAL DIVISION CC COMMONWEALTH'S MOTION IN LIMINE 0 w --1 -ll - ~,..._ U) 0.. :5zn uo> - u..-1- X: n::ci)z oq ;:~,_ =-- 0 ~ a u.:1"...>...j> 0~.-?:: ' U-!:L...J ~ ~;;;.)_ cc 0-- cr,'"'..:r u.: - ~U:; :e UJ < 0 ' Filed on Behalf of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania STEPHEN A. ZAPPALA, JR. DISTruCT ATTORNEY By Jennifer Arnette Assistant District Attorney PA I.D. No Office of the District Attorney Of Allegheny C~mnty 401 Courthouse Pittsburgh, PA (412)

2 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ABDULA J. RICHARDSON CC COMMONWEALTH'S REQUEST FOR A MOTION IN LIMINE AND NOW, to wit, this 4th day of April, 2014, comes the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania by its attorneys, STEPHEN A. ZAPPALA, JR., District Attorney, and, JENNIFER ARNETTE, Assistant District Attorney, and, for the reasons that follow, files the following Motion: 1. At No. CC , Defendant, Abdula J. Richardson was charged with the following: one (1) count of Burglary, in violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. 3502(a)(1), one (1) count of Aggravated Assault, in violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. 2702(a)(3), two (2) counts of Aggravated Assault, in violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. 2702(a)(6), one (1) count of Riot, in violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. 5501, one ( 1) count of Criminal Trespass, in violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. 3503(a)( 1 )(i), two (2) counts of Terroristic Threats, in violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. 2706(a)(1), and one (1) count of Resisting Arrest, in violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. 5104(a). 2. Defendant waived his preliminary hearing on or about September 17, A trial on those charges is scheduled to begin May 12,

3 COMMONWEALTH'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT OF POLICE RETALIATION/MISCONDUCT AND/OR POLICE MISCONDUCT 3. It is expected that the Defendant's comments, expressed to the police and to the general public, will become the basis for issues of prosecutorial vindictiveness and selective prosecution that the defense will attempt to bring before the trier of fact at his upcoming trial. 4. Over the past months, the Defendant has made numerous allegations of purported police harassment and police retaliation. These allegations have been expressed through statements to the media and, in a provocative manner, to neighbors of the Defendant when the police have been dispatched to his residence as a result of over one hundred (100) emergency calls that have alleged various emergencies requiring police, EMS, and first responder assistance to his residence. These statements are not only disparaging to the City of Pittsburgh Police Department, but those comments also undermine and compromise the criminal justice system within which we live and denigrate the integrity, validity, and Bona Fides of the instant investigations and prosecutions. A number of these allegations and comments have been memorialized on police reports which are attached hereto as Exhibits 1 through The determination of the validity of "a claim of prosecutorial vindictiveness is a question of law, not fact." United States v. Krezdom, 718 F.2d 1360 (5th Cir. 1983). The Court in United States v. Napper, 553 F.Supp. 231 (E.D.N. Y. 1982), stated that selective prosecution is "unrelated to the determination of guilt or innocence." Therefore, the Defendant does not have a "right to present selective prosecution claims to the jury." United States v. Berrigan, 482 F.2d 171 (3d Cir. 1973). The Court in Berrigan stated that 3

4 a claim of selective prosecution should not be raised at trial, but instead that the proper forum in which to raise it is within a motion to dismiss. ld. (see also Commonwealth v. Lenig, 403 Pa.Super 455, 589 A.2d 700 (1991) and Commonwealth v. Butler, 529 Pa. 7, 601 A.2d 268 (1991)). 6. Additionally, before any evidence is admissible in a criminal proceeding, it must be competent and relevant. Commonwealth v. Davis, 554 A.2d 104, 108 (Pa.Super. 1989). As far as relevancy is concerned, the admissibility of evidence is a matter left up to the sound discretion of the trial court.!d. Furthermore, Rule 403 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence states: Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.!d. 7. In this case, any evidence offered by the instant Defendant in regards to anticipated allegations of harassment by the City of Pittsburgh Police Department for responding to his house over 100 times within an approximate three (3) week time period, after being dispatched by emergency telephone calls, is irrelevant to a determination of the Defendant's guilt or innocence on the instant charges. Therefore, based upon the foregoing case law and Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 403, the introduction of any evidence or argument of this nature at trial is impermissible. 8. Certain assertions made by Defendant and presently of record include those that the Zone 6 police officers of the City of Pittsburgh Police Department have been "harassing" the Defendant by arbitrarily going to his house because of his "aspiring political position." See City of Pittsburgh Bureau ofpoli~e Investigative Report CCR# and CCR# attached hereto as Exhibits 8 and 2, respectively. 4

5 9. Investigation by law enforcement has revealed that between the dates of March 8, 2014 through and until March 30,2014, phone calls have been made from the Defendant's residentiallandline over one hundred (100) times to the emergency Call Center. In response to each call the Call Center has had to dispatch police to investigate those "bogus" calls due to the content of many of those 911 calls. The content includes a female-sounding voice saying, "Help me, help me." See City of Pittsburgh Bureau of Police Investigative Report CCR# ; and a female-sounding voice stating she was being assaulted. See City of Pittsburgh Bureau of Police Investigative Report CCR# , CCR# , CCR# hereto attached as Exhibits 4, 5, and 7, respectively. 10. The Commonwealth submits that such allegations, already being promulgated by the Defendant, have been fabricated from "whole cloth" in order to taint potential jurors from the jury pool, raise an improper defense, and/or shift the focus away from trial on the charges Defendant is now facing in May. 11. The Defendant has made claims to the police that he doesn't know why the police keep coming to his house because no one in his residence is calling 911. See City of Pittsburgh Bureau of Police Investigative Report CCR # , CCR # , CCR# , attached hereto as Exhibits 6, 13, and 14, respectively. However, Defendant's service provider, Verizon, has records that indicate phone calls have been to the police over 100 times from the landline telephone in the Defendant's residence. See Computer Search Verizon Case# , hereto attached as Exhibit 32 (Emphasis added). Likewise, records show that the police have verified the defendant's phone number through dispatch, while on the scene at the Defendant's residence, by calling the 5

6 telephone number back and the police officers heard a telephone ringing inside the house. See City of Pittsburgh Bureau of Police Investigative Report CCR # , CCR # ; see also CCR# (noting that Dispatch stated the calls "were coming in 'One after another."') hereto attached as Exhibits 8, 14, and 15, respectively. 12. Statements made to date by the Defendant have demonstrated Defendant's desire to use this conduct as a means to justify the ends in the instant matter because he has stated, "he was out to prove the incidents of 'September 3, 2013,' were a result of the Pittsburgh Police setting him up." See City of Pittsburgh Bureau of Police Investigative Report CCR# attached hereto as Exhibit 11. Additionally, when the police have arrived at the Defendant's house, the police have been met by the Defendant and his sons with their own personal recording devices, both video recording devices and cell phones with video-recording features. See City of Pittsburgh Bureau of Police Investigative Report CCR # , CCR # , CCR# , CCR # , CCR # , and CCR# , hereto attached as Exhibits 6, 8, 9, 11,12, and 14, respectively. 13. The Commonwealth denies that any impropriety exists in either the commencement or the conduct of these instant prosecutions. However, even assuming, arguendo, (although vehemently denied in this case) that a prosecutorial bias by the police or anyone related to this case as alleged actually exists, that fact in and of itself would have no legal bearing on the respective Defendants' criminal culpability. As the Superior Court stated in Commonwealth v. Balenger, 772 A.2d 86 (Pa.Super. 1997): "... Although ideally we would like all prosecutors to be operating on only the most 'ethical' and neutral motivational bases, are we to vacate any conviction where a prosecutor's personal interests might be advanced as a result of the prosecution or who has a 'personal desire' to see the accused convicted? Many 6

7 prosecutors have gone on to a 'higher office' or advanced their careers after prosecuting a 'high profile' case that gets their name in the news media. Some, like those involved in the prosecution of high profile celebrity cases, might later write a book or screenplay about the experience thereby experiencing pecuniary gain. Undoubtedly some prosecutors are aware that a conviction in a certain case might advance their careers. Can the fact that a prosecutor is motivated by the potential benefits of prosecuting a particular case be used as a basis to nullify an ensuing conviction? In our opinion, as long as the motivational factor does not lead the prosecutor to 'step over the line' and engage in improper conduct, we think the answer to the above rhetorical question must be 'no'". (Emphasis added).!d. at Therefore, on the basis of the evidence to date, the Commonwealth respectfully requests that this Honorable Court exclude any evidence or argument proffered by the defense that would assert purported vindictiveness or corrupt motive by the City of Pittsburgh Police Department or would otherwise negatively address the integrity, validity, or Bona Fides of the instant investigation and prosecution, or in any other way would attempt to reflect or convey to the trier of fact the concept that the instant prosecution is the result of selective prosecution or is otherwise based upon improper motive. Wherefore, based on the foregoing, the Commonwealth respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant the Commonwealth's Motion in Limine. Respectfully submitted, 7

8 VERIFICATION I, Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Arnette, the undersigned, do hereby declare that the statements of fact set forth in the foregoing motion are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief and are made subject to the penalties related to unsworn falsification to authorities under Section 4904 of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code, 18 Pa. C.S Date 8

9 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. CC ABDUL J. RICHARDSON ORDER OF THE COURT AND NOW, to-wit, this day of. 2014, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Commonwealth's Motion in Limine, in the above captioned case, be granted. BY THE COURT:,J. 9

10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving upon the persons and in the manner indicated below a true and correct copy of the within Motion in Limine. The manner of service satisfies the requirements ofpa.r.crim.p Service by First Class mail or personal service addressed as follows: Frank C. Walker, II Frank Walker Law 428 Forbes Ave., Suite 1800 Pittsburgh, PA Honorable Anthony M. Mariani 315 Allegheny County Courthouse Pittsburgh, PA Thomas McCaffrey, Court Administrator 5th Floor, County Courthouse Pittsburgh, PA