Our client was convicted of first degree murder in 2008. The key evidence against him was a statement taken by a Philadelphia homicide detective from a friend of our client. The statement claimed that our client had the motive, means, and opportunity to commit the shooting. At trial, the witness who provided the statement claimed that the detective fabricated it and made him sign it after the detective physically assaulted him and told him he would ensure that the witnesses child would be taken away from him. After an extensive investigation, we found ten other people throughout Philadelphia that had previously testified to strikingly similar experiences with this detective. We filed a PCRA petition and subsequently presented testimony from these people to establish that the detective has a habit and pattern of securing false witness statements. The PCRA Court agreed that these witnesses established that this detective uses habitually coercive tactics in his interactions with witnesses. The Court vacated our client’s conviction and ordered a new trial. At a new trial, the witness statement is now in admissible. The PCRA Court also agreed with our argument that prior counsel was ineffective for failing to secure a mistrial after this detective provided grossly inflammatory and improper testimony at the first trial
