By Paula Reed Ward
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
PITTSBURGH — Attorneys for a man awaiting retrial for the triple fatal Bricelyn Street fire in 1995 want the state Supreme Court to take jurisdiction of the case, accusing the prosecution of filing a “frivolous” appeal.
In a request filed Thursday for King’s Bench review -- the ability of the high court to take on any case from a lower one -- Gregory Brown’s lawyers ask that the case finally go to trial, saying they believe the Allegheny County District Attorney’s office is purposely delaying.
The Supreme Court’s intervention, they wrote, “is the only way to prevent injustice that makes a mockery of Pennsylvania’s judicial system and the right to a fair and speedy trial. ... The prosecution’s repeated filing of baseless motions, petitions and, most recently, a frivolous appeal, have added years of delay and jail time for Brown.”
As of Thursday, Mr. Brown had been in prison for 19 years, five months and five days, wrote Dave Fawcett and Jason Hazlewood. The district attorney’s office has 14 days to respond to the petition, and a spokesman had no comment.
Mr. Brown, 38, was found guilty of three counts of second-degree murder in the Feb. 14, 1995, blaze that killed firefighters Thomas Brooks, 42, Patricia Conroy, 43, and Marc Kolenda, 27.
Nearly two years ago, however, Common Pleas Judge Joseph K. Williams III vacated Mr. Brown’s conviction, finding that during his original trial, Jason Wick, an agent with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and the prosecution failed to turn over evidence that witnesses were offered money for their testimony.
The district attorney’s office appealed to Superior Court and after losing there, asked the state Supreme Court to take the case as well. It refused, and the case was sent back to Judge Williams for retrial.
In October, the prosecution filed a motion asking the judge to remove himself from the case, alleging that he had a bias against a DEA agent who might be brought as an expert witness in the retrial. The judge denied the request, and the district attorney’s office filed an interlocutory appeal to the state Superior Court. The issue is pending there -- putting a hold on Mr. Brown’s trial.
By not calling witnesses or presenting any evidence at the recusal hearing, Mr. Brown’s attorneys wrote, “The commonwealth, in short, simply went through the motions.
“The sole apparent purpose is to cause further delay and keep Brown incarcerated for as long as possible before he has a chance to defend himself in a fair trial,” the attorneys wrote.
In addition, the petition said, any allegations of bias by the prosecution should have been raised in its first appeal of the granting of the new trial to avoid “multiple disjointed and time-consuming appeals.”
Mr. Brown is asking the appellate court to terminate the commonwealth’s appeal, return the case to Judge Williams in Common Pleas Court and forbid the district attorney’s office from filing further interlocutory appeals without permission.
“It’s an extraordinary and rarely used measure, but this is an extraordinary and urgent situation that demands it,” Mr. Hazlewood said of the King’s Bench request. “This is the type of urgency we’re approaching this case with.. . . An innocent man has been sitting in prison for the better part of 20 years without the benefit of the fair trial that the constitution guarantees him.”
___
(c)2016 the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.