Commonwealth Motion In Limine to Allow Introducation of Co-conspirator Statements

I IN THE COURT OFICOMMON OF DAUPHIN I I - . - CRIMINAL it I - I COMMONWEALTH or . Ig - i STEPHEN H. STETLER No. c01v1Mo1vwnALm?s ro ALLOW nvmonucrroum I. OF STA - AND. NOW, comes I the Commonwealth of through Linda L. Kelly, . I I Attorney General, Michael A. _Sprow, Senior Deputy Attomey General, and K. Kenneth Brown, I H, Senior Deputy Attomey General, who iles this Motion in Limine to. allow introduction of co-. conspirator in support of.that Motion states the following: I - 1) Pursuant to Presen1mentI9 of the 28m Statewide Investigating Jury, Defendant Stephen H. Isaac; was charged on or aboutIDec ber 15, 2009 with one count each of Conflict of I Interest;65 1103 Theil: by Unlawful Taking or Disposition, 1.8 3921 I I I I Theft of Services, 18 3926 Theil: by Deception, 18 3922 I I i' Theft?by'IPailure'to Make Required'Disposidon 0f`Fl1I1dS Received; and Criminal Conspiracy, 18 903. All of this conduct occurredIwhile the I I I defendant an elected state representative. I - I I in the above-captioned case currently is scheduled to commence on June 18, 20-12. I I I 3I) Based on the nature of the evidence in this case, which includes numerous email exchanges . and oral conversations, the Commonwealth believes and therefore avers that communications I II betweI charged and uncharged co-conspirators, or betwe charged and uncharged co- I I conspirators and a third party, will be presented during the trial of this case. I - 4) Under law, out of- court statements of one co-conspirator may be introduced another co-conspirator as an exception to the hearsay rule, provided three basic . requirem ts are met: (1) the prosecution- offers proof of a conspiracy between the declarant I I the defendant against whom the- evidence is offered; the statement was rnade during the course of the conspiracy; and (3) the statem was made in furtherance ofthe common-. . design. Commonwealth v. Mayhue, 639 A.2d 421, `431 (Pa. 1994); Commonwealth v. . Dreibelbis, 426 A.2d 1111, 1115 (Pa. 1981); 803(25)(E)r . 5) For purposes of the co-conspirator exception, it is not necessary that the defendant against whom the statement is offered be present at the time of the out-of-comt statem t. _Rather, . the declarations of one co--conspirator made to a party are admissible against all co- . conspirators, provided they were made during the conspiracy and in thereof I oommoawaauh v. Cull, 613 A.2d _12, 16 (Pa.Super. 1992). - - 6) The co-conspirator exception is on principles; conspirator is I considered an of other(s), land therefore, a statement by one represents an admi sion Commonwealth v. Johnsg, 838 A.2d 663, 675 (Pa. 2003). - the Commonwealth is required to prove the of I - a conspiracy a "fair preponderance" of the evidence. - 639 A.2d at 432. Moreover, the existence- of the conspiracy need notbe through direct evidence; ratherinferentially established showing the relation, conduct or circumstances Dreibelbis, 426 A.2d at 11?15; Commonwealth v. Fox, 619 A.2d 327, 334 (Pa.8uper. 1993). - . 1 . - .9) "[S]tatements made by conspirators in an attempt to conceal- a completed crime may be admissible against other co-conspirators under the conspirator exception _when the concealment of the was an integal part of the common design to which the I conspirators agreed," and none ofthe conspirators had yet been arrested or was in custody at the time ofthe out-of-co"urt statement. llrlayhue, 639 A.2d at 433. - I 10) The rules amiamnc?a by the United States Supreme Court in Bruton v. United Statesl I Crawford v. n2 do not preclude the admission of statements that meet the requirements of the _co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule. Commonwealth v. Cull, 656 A.2d 476, 480-81 (Pa. 1995); Commonwealth v. Cocciol@' ll 493 Pa. 103, 425 A.2d 387, 391 (1981); Commonwealth v. Holton, 906 A.2d 1246, 1253-55 (Pa. Super. 2006); Cull, 613 A.2d 15. 1InBr1_gn,1l1eSupreme which inculpatesthe defendant, is generallyinadmissible as aviolation ofthe defendants Si:dhAmendmentrightto ?0?&ont adverse witnesses. ,Bn_1tg v. Qited States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S. Ct. 1620 (1968). . 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354 (2004). - 3 Under where admission of out--of-court "testimonial" statements is involved, . the Sixth Amendment 541 U.S. at 68. However, where "non-testimoniaI" statements are at issue, their admissibility is governed by the hearsay law of the states. _I-gn, 906 A.2d at 1253. In non-testimonial statements are admissible . long asthe statements fall containparticularized guarantees of . trustworthinessf 906 A.2d at 1255. Clearly, in order to know which standard to apply, one must Erst d?1'He wl hearing, before a or at a former trial; andto police interrogations." 541 U.S. at 68. Subsequent case law has_ Heshed out that statements to police are testimonial when there is no ongoing emergency, 126 S. Ct. 2266, 2273-74 (2006). In contrast, out-of-court statements are non-testimonial where the . pmposes. 1253-54. . 3 I- I {ORE, the Commonwealth requests that this Court allow the . an Commonwealth to introduce any out-of-court statements that are non-testimonial, and that meet the requirements of the co-conspiratorlexception to the hearsay rule. Specifically, this request would encompass any email or_oral communications between charged and imchargedr co--conspirators, or between chargedand uncharged co-conspirators and a third party, which occurred rmder circumsmces that would not have suggested that the statement was going to. - be used for prosecutorial purposes. . . aespmmuy submiucd, . . - LINDA L. KELLY- . . ATTORNEY GENERAL . . By: 4 MI A. SPROW - . Senior Deputy Attomey General . Pa. Supreme Ct. #88573 - K. KENNETH BRO . - Senior Deputy Attomey General- . ..-. . .. ..-.- . . GtOFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL - - Criminal Law Division - Prosecutions Section . . . - 16m Floor, Strawberry Square - . Harrisburg, PA 17120 . - . (717) 783-9995 . - DATE: May 2012 . . - IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DAUPHIN COUNTYCOMMONWEALTH OF vs. . - STEPHEN H. STETLER - - N0. CP-22-CR-0003351-2010 - . PROOF or I hereby certify that I-am this day serving upon the persons and in the manner indicated below a copy of the foregoing "Commonwealth's Motionin Limine to Allow the Introduction of Co-conspirator Statements? The manner of service satisfies the. requirements of Pa.R.Crim.P. i 575 and 576. . - Service electronic means addressed as follows: Joshua D. Lock, Esq. (717) 234-4161 - Goldberg Katzman, P.C. 4250 Crums Mill Road, Suite 301, PO Box 6991 . Harrisburg, PA .17112 - email address: (Attorney for Stephen H. Stetler) . - I Rc?pg ?'tt-ulls? Qubmittcd, I . -MI A. SPROW i Senior Deputy Attomey General - Pa. Supreme Ct. I.D. #88573 . . - . OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL - Prosecution Section . - 16* Floor, Strawberry Square - Harrisburg, PA 17120 . . . - (717) 787-6346; (717) 705-7246 (fax) - DATE: Ma;} Q3 ,2012 . . I - I COTIRT OF OOMMON COMMONWEALTH STEPHEN H. STETEER No. - A .- A AND NOW, this day of I 2012, upon consideration of the i 'Commonwealth's Motion in to Admit Co-conspirator Statements, the Court ORDERS - that the motion is GRANTED. The Commonwealth may introduce any out-of-court statements . - that are non-testimonialland that meet the requir ents of the co-conspirator exception to the I hearsay. rule. This Order encompasses any emails, docum ts, or oral communications between charged unchargedl co-conspirators, or between charged and-imcharged coaconspirators and a . i third party, which occurred under that would not have suggested the statement was going to be used for prosecutorial purposes. I or A A yrry uuzum?4=41??; I A I I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS I I DAUPHIN COUNTYCOMMONWEALTH OF If: - v. No. CR-3351-2010 U1 . . . 0 ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER TO MOTION 1N LIMINE TO ALLOW INTRODUCTION OF I CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS TO THE HONORABLE TODD PRESIDENT JUDGE OF SAID COURT: 1. Admitted I 2. Admitted I 3. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufhcient knowledge or I I - infomation to answer the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 ofthe Comrnonwealthis Motion. 4. Paragraph 4 of the Commonwealth's Motion consists of conclusions of law I I II not requiring responsive pleadingsParagraph 5 ofthe Commonwealth's Motion consists of conclusions of law not responsive pleadings! I - 6. Paragraph 6 ofthe Commonwcalth's Motion consists of conclusions of law not requiring responsive pleadings. arHQ'aph'7"6fth Motion cons1? of conclEions of law . not requiring responsive pleadings. 8. Paragraph 8 ofthe Commonwea1th'sI Motion consists of conclusions I -- not requiring responsive pleadings. 1 9. Paragraph 9 ofthe Commonwealth's Motion consists of conclusions of law not requiring responsive pleadings. 10. Paragraph 10 ofthe Commonwea1th's Motion consists of conclusions of law not requiring responsive pleadings. I ll. The Commonwealth provides no details regarding the witnesses, testimony or other evidence which they suggest should be admissible under the legal principles which, they assert, have application to this case. I The legal precedent which they cite is of no value if not related to specific, proffered evidence, and the Commonwealth has simply not disclosed any such evidence. Their invitation to make in limine rulings without this information is. premature, unnecessary, and unfair to the Court. WHEREFORE, Defendant prays Your Honorable Court to dismiss the Commonwea1th's ll/lotion Limmiu ne to allow lntroduction Co-Conspirator Statem. ents. Respectfully submitted, I - I flat; -- May 25, 2012 -0- I. oc squire I . No. 17092 erg Katzman, P.C. ?4-2 0 P.O. Box 6991 - . Harrisburg, 17112 Telephone: 71-7-234-4161 Fax: 717>>234-6808 - E--mai1: jdl@goldber .com I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE . The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served on the persons listed below on the date indicated by iirst class mail, postage pre--paid. 1; Kenneth umm, Senior Deputy Attorney General of Attorney General Strawberry Square, 16* tloor Harrisburg, PA 17120 Michael Sprow Senior Deputy Attorney General Office of Attorney General Strawberry Square, 16?' iloor Harrisburg, PA 17120 2 May 25, 2012 . z. . Lock, Esquire -- - - (R) No. 17092 I erg.Katzrnan, P.C. 1 4250 Crums Mill Road, Ste 301 P.O. Box 6991 Harrisburg, 17112 I 717-234-4161 Oice . . . .. . .. . - .. -- -- - 717-234-6808 Fax - -. - - I- DAUPI-IIN COMMONWEALTH OF v. No. CR-3351-2010 STEPHEN H. I . . ORDER AND NOW, this day of May, .2012, upon consideration of the Commonwealth's Motion in Liinine to Allow Introduction of Co-Conspirator `Stat an ents and the Defendar1t's Answer thereto, it is hereby ORDERED AND DECREED that said Motion is By the CourtPresident Judge Distribution: - K. Kenneth Brown, SDAG, Oice ofthe Attomey General, Strawberry Square, 16* Floor, Harrisburg, PA 17120 Michael A. Sprow, SDAG, Oice ofthe Attomey General, Strawberry Square, 16* Floor, Harrisburg, PA 17120 Joshua D. Lock, Esquire, Goldberg Katzman, P.C., 4250 Crums Road, Ste 301, P.O. Box 6991, Harrisburg, 17112 . ?1 I - COMMONWEALTH OF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DAUPI-IIN COUNTY, VS. STEPHEN H. NO. CP-22-CR-0003351-2010 - ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this of May, 2012, upon consideration ofthe Commonwealth's Motion in Limine to Admit Co-conspirator Statements and Defendant's Answer thereto, the Court hereby GRANTS the Commonwealth's Motion. The Commonwealth may introduce any out-of-court statements that are non-testimonial and that meet .the requirements of the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule. This Order encompasses any emails, documents, or oral commimications between charged and tmcharged co-conspirators, or between charged and uncharged co-conspirators and_ a third party, which i occurred under circumstances that wo11ld not have suggested that the statement was going to be I usedfor prosecutorial purposesTHE COURTHoover, President 3 . ?lri 9~ - Frank ina, Esquire (Chief Deputy Attomey General) m,3~L K. Kenneth Brown, II, Esquire (Senior Deputy Attomey General) . Michael A. Sprow, Esquire (Deputy Attorney General) Office of Attomey General, 16?' Floor, Strawberry Square, Harrisburg, Pa 17120 Joshua D. Lock, Esquire Goldberg Katzman,_P. C., 320 Market Street, PO Box 1268, Harrisburg, Pa 17108-1268 (Atty. for Stetler) . .