Amendment 5891 to House Resolution 240 P.N. 3607, Regular Session 2021-2022

H0240R3607A05891 MSP:JSL 11/10/22 #90 A05891

AMENDMENTS TO HOUSE RESOLUTION NO. 240

Sponsor: REPRESENTATIVE ECKER

Printer's No. 3607

Amend Resolution, page 1, lines 4 through 19; pages 2 through

21, lines 1 through 30; page 22, lines 1 through 27; by striking

out all of said lines on said pages and inserting

WHEREAS, Lawrence Samuel Krasner was elected to the position

of District Attorney of Philadelphia on November 7, 2017, and

re-elected to the position on November 2, 2021, pursuant to

section 4 of Article IX of the Constitution of Pennsylvania; and

WHEREAS, Pursuant to section 4 of Article VI of the

Constitution of Pennsylvania, only the House of Representatives,

as a body, has the power of impeachment; and

WHEREAS, Pursuant to section 6 of Article VI of the

Constitution of Pennsylvania, civil officers like District

Attorney Krasner may be subject to impeachment by the House of

Representatives for "any misbehavior in office"; and

WHEREAS, In its 1994 opinion in Larsen v. Senate of

Pennsylvania, the Commonwealth Court spoke to the meaning of the

language "any misbehavior in office" in section 6 of Article VI

of the Constitution of Pennsylvania; and

WHEREAS, Justice Larsen argued that the applicable standard

of "misbehavior in office" was nothing more than a codification

of the common law offense of misconduct in office, meaning "the

breach of a positive statutory duty or the performance by a

public official of a discretionary act with an improper or

corrupt motive"; and

WHEREAS, In its opinion, the Commonwealth Court held that

even if the strict definition espoused by Larsen were the

appropriate rule, Larsen's conduct still met that heavy burden.

More importantly, however, the court said that this "strict

definition...finds no support in judicial precedents." Stated

differently, there is no precedent that the current language is

so constrained; and

WHEREAS, The Philadelphia District Attorney's Office's stated

mission and statutory purpose is, among other things, to provide

a voice for victims of crime, protect the community through

zealous, ethical and effective investigations and prosecutions,

and to uphold and prosecute violations of the laws of this

Commonwealth and the provisions of Philadelphia's Home Rule

2022/90MSP/HR0240A05891 - 1 -

Charter; and

WHEREAS, District Attorney Krasner, by and through his failed

policies and procedures, and throughout the discharge of his

duties as Philadelphia's chief law enforcement officer, has been

derelict in his obligations to the victims of crime, the people

of the City of Philadelphia and of this Commonwealth and has

failed to uphold his oath of office; and

WHEREAS, District Attorney Krasner is bound by the Rules of

Professional Conduct adopted by the Supreme Court, which set

forth the minimal ethical requirements for all attorneys

licensed to practice law in this Commonwealth, as well as the

Code of Judicial Conduct, which is applicable to all district

attorneys in this Commonwealth. 16 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 1401(o) ("A

district attorney shall be subject to the Rules of Professional

Conduct and the canons of ethics as applied to judges in the

courts of common pleas of this Commonwealth ..."); and

WHEREAS, There have been multiple incidents of District

Attorney Krasner exhibiting unethical conduct by lacking candor

to the Courts of this Commonwealth in violation of Rule of

Professional Conduct 3.3, committing professional misconduct in

violation of Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4 and engaging in

impropriety and or appearances of impropriety in violation of

Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct; and

WHEREAS, District Attorney Krasner has been in office since

January 2018. Under District Attorney Krasner's administration,

and as detailed herein, the city has descended into an

unprecedented crisis of lawlessness. By way of example only,

there were 562 murders in 2021, the most in the 340-year history

of the city. Under District Attorney Krasner, murders and

violence occur in every part of the city at every hour of the

day. Shootings on public transportation, in populated

neighborhoods with families and children, near schools and in

the center city business district have now become frequent and

routine. Open air drug markets have become ubiquitous. He has

decriminalized prostitution effectively destroying programs

designed to rescue women from addiction and human trafficking.

District Attorney Krasner has decriminalized retail theft

resulting in numerous businesses leaving the city. He has

released criminals back on to the street who go on to commit

even more heinous crimes of murder, rape and robbery against the

people of Philadelphia, the overwhelming majority of whom are

African American. This crisis of crime and violence is a direct

result of District Attorney Krasner's incompetence, ideological

rigidity and refusal to perform the duties he swore to carry out

when he became District Attorney. He has deliberately

eviscerated the District Attorney's Office's ability to

adequately enforce the laws of this Commonwealth; endangered the

health, welfare and safety of more than 1.5 million

Pennsylvanians that reside in Philadelphia and the tens of

millions of Americans who visit the city every year; and, his

conduct has brought the Office of District Attorney and the

2022/90MSP/HR0240A05891 - 2 -

justice system itself into disrepute; therefore be it

RESOLVED, That Lawrence Samuel Krasner, District Attorney of

Philadelphia, be impeached for misbehavior in office and that

the following Articles of Impeachment be exhibited to the Senate

pursuant to section 5 of Article VI of the Constitution of

Pennsylvania:

ARTICLE I:

Misbehavior in Office In the Nature of Dereliction

of Duty and Refusal to Enforce the Law

Upon assuming office, District Attorney Krasner terminated

more than 30 assistant district attorneys (ADA) from employment

with the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office. Many of these

terminated assistant district attorneys were senior-level

staffers in supervisory roles who possessed significant

prosecutorial experience and knowledge of criminal procedure.

District Attorney Krasner replaced this vast institutional

knowledge in the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office with

attorneys who lacked any meaningful experience in prosecuting

criminal cases, some of whom only recently graduated from law

school.

District Attorney Krasner subsequently withdrew the office

from membership in the Pennsylvania District Attorneys

Association (PDAA) because, he asserted, PDAA supported

regressive and punitive policies. In withdrawing from PDAA,

District Attorney Krasner denied the attorneys in his office the

ability to participate in the various professional development

and training programs provided by PDAA through its educational

institute.

Rather than offering traditional prosecutorial training on

such subjects as prosecutorial ethics, human trafficking,

witness examination, trial advocacy, trial management and

achieving justice for domestic violence and sexual assault

victims, District Attorney Krasner offered attorneys seminars,

including "A New Vision for Criminal Justice in Philadelphia,"

"Deportation: The Unforeseen Consequences of Prosecution in our

Immigrant Community," and "Philadelphia and Safe Injection: Harm

Reduction as Public Policy." The Philadelphia District

Attorney's Office eventually returned to more traditional

prosecutorial training, however, the office continued to focus

on issues that promote District Attorney Krasner's radically

progressive philosophies rather than how to effectively

prosecute a criminal case.

Upon being elected to office, District Attorney Krasner

established a series of office policies with the purported

purpose to "end mass incarceration and bring balance back to

sentencing," and later adopted a series of policies related to

certain crimes or classes of people. These policies include

directives not to charge sex workers or individuals for certain

classes of crimes such as prostitution or possession of

marijuana and marijuana-related drug paraphernalia.

These new policies identified a series of offenses for which

2022/90MSP/HR0240A05891 - 3 -

the gradation may be reduced with the purpose of "reduc[ing]

pre-trial incarceration rates as no bail is required and the

shorter time required for hearings expedites Municipal Court and

Common Pleas dockets," and requiring disposition of retail theft

cases unless the value of the item stolen exceeds $500 or where

the defendant has an extensive history of theft convictions.

District Attorney Krasner instituted policies to make plea

offers below the bottom end of the mitigated range under the

Sentencing Guidelines from the Pennsylvania Sentencing

Commission and seek greater use of house arrest, probation and

alternative sentencing when the sentencing guidelines indicate a

range of incarceration of less than 24 months.

In February 2018, District Attorney Krasner established a

policy that his office "will ordinarily no longer ask for cash

bail for...misdemeanors and felonies" listed in the policy,

because "[T]he cash bail system is rife with injustice and

exacerbates socio-economic and racial inequalities,

disproportionately penalizing the poor and people of color."

In November 2018, District Attorney Krasner adopted a policy

in which a criminal defendant's immigration status should be

considered in the plea-bargaining process, effectively providing

that if an immigration consequence is detected pre-trial or with

respect to a sentencing recommendation, counsel will advise if

an offer can be made to avoid the consequence.

Other policies that District Attorney Krasner directed were

as follows:

(1) Assistant district attorneys may not proceed in

cases against defendants driving under the influence of

cannabis when the defendants' blood "contains inactive

metabolite (11-Nor-9-Carboxy-Delta-9-THC) or 4 or fewer

ng/mls of psycho-active THC" and that "if the defense

presents evidence that calls impairment into question, an ADA

may consider dropping the charges against the defendant."

(2) The District Attorney's Office "will only oppose

motions for redactions or expungements in limited

circumstances" and sets forth various scenarios in which the

office will agree to, seek or not oppose the expungement of a

defendant's criminal history.

(3) The District Attorney's Office directed plea offers

and sentencing recommendations:

(i) for felonies, "aimed at an office-wide average

period of total supervision among cases of around 18

months or less of total supervision, with a ceiling of 3

years of total supervision or less on each case";

(ii) for misdemeanors, aimed at an office-wide

average of "6 months or less of total supervision, with a

ceiling of 1 year";

(iii) for all matters, for "concurrent sentences";

and

(iv) for cases involving incarceration, "for a

period of parole that is no longer than the period of

2022/90MSP/HR0240A05891 - 4 -

incarceration."

Nearly all of District Attorney Krasner's policies "create a

presumption" for ADAs to follow and require approval from

District Attorney Krasner himself or a first assistant district

attorney for deviations from the policies.

District Attorney Krasner, in an April 2021 report published

by the District Attorney's Office (DAO) titled "Ending Mass

Supervision: Evaluating Reforms," wrote in his opening letter:

"I am proud of the work this office has done to make

Philadelphians, particularly Philadelphians of Color, freer from

unnecessary government intrusion, while keeping our communities

safe." In reality, the policies and practices of the

Philadelphia District Attorney's Office instituted under the

direction of District Attorney Krasner have led to catastrophic

consequences for the people of the City of Philadelphia.

According to the City Controller, spikes in gun violence and

homicides have dramatically impacted historically disadvantaged

neighborhoods, and those neighborhoods are "primarily low-income

with predominately black or African American residents." The

Philadelphia Police Department (PPD) reports that the number of

homicide victims has increased every year since 2016, more than

doubling from 2016 to 2021, with a year-over-year increase of

40% between 2019 and 2020. As of October 16, 2022, there have

already been 430 homicides in the City of Philadelphia in 2022.

As of October 17, 2022, reported trends gathered from the PPD's

"incident" data, which tracks the reporting of all crimes in

addition to homicides, shows a 12% increase in all reported

offenses, a 6% increase in violent offenses and a 21% increase

in property offenses.

While incidents of violent crime are increasing, prosecution

of crime by the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office has

decreased during this same period. In 2016, the Philadelphia

District Attorney's Office reported that only 30% of "all

offenses" resulted in a dismissal or withdrawal, but that number

spiked to 50% in 2019, 54% in 2020, 67% in 2021 and 65% to date

in 2022.

A similar trend is evident when filtering the data for

violent crimes, where, in 2016, the withdrawal and dismissed

violent crime cases accounted for 48% of all violent crime case

outcomes, but that percentage increased to 60% in 2019, to 68%

in 2020, to 70% in 2021 and to 66% in 2022 to date. Data from

the Pennsylvania Sentencing Commission relating to violations of

the Uniform Firearms Act (VUFA) evidences a similar jarring

trend. The Sentencing Commission reports that guilty

dispositions in the City of Philadelphia declined from 88% in

2015 to 66% in 2020, compared to a decline from 84% to 72% in

counties of the second class, with the driver of the decrease

being nolle pros dispositions. As compared to the Statewide data

and other county classes, in the City of Philadelphia the

percent of guilty verdicts has decreased significantly, while

the percent of nolle prossed cases has increased.

2022/90MSP/HR0240A05891 - 5 -

Studies by the Delaware Valley Intelligence Center (DVIC)

attempted to provide "an explanation for the increase in

homicides and shootings in an effort to begin a conversation to

address the challenge at a strategic level," and, significantly,

the report notes:

"The rate of prosecution dismissal and withdrawal has been

increase [sic] substantially since 2015 under DA [Seth]

Williams, and has continued to increase after DA Krasner took

office. Furthermore, a closer examination of these dropped cases

indicates that more cases are dismissed/withdrawn at the

preliminary hearing state [sic] under DA Krasner than the actual

trial state []. This implies that, even when criminals are

caught with a gun, they are swiftly finding out they may not

receive as significant a consequence as they had historically.

Notably, the likelihood of being arrested is low to begin with.

This means that, criminals know that their likelihood of getting

caught with a gun is slim and, even if they get caught, they

feel that they can leave without severe (or any) consequences."

The DVIC conducted a "cursory examination" of

dismissed/withdrawn cases in 2018/2019 and "found 6 offenders

whose cases were dismissed (VUFA former convict charge) and got

later involved in shootings...2 of these shootings were fatal

and 4 out of these 6 offenders were gang members."

The DVIC studied the prosecution declination for narcotics,

retail theft and prostitution arrests from 2016 to 2018, and

concluded in its key findings that the percentage of all

declinations, not just narcotics, prostitution and retail theft,

increased "especially in 2018" to more than 7%, when it had been

just 2% or less between 2007 and 2015.

In September 2020, the Philadelphia City Council authorized

the Committee on Public Safety and the Special Committee on Gun

Violence Prevention to study gun violence in the city. This

study involved a collaboration between the Controller's Office,

Defender Association, Department of Public Health, District

Attorney's Office, First Judicial District, Managing Director's

Office, Pennsylvania Attorney General and PPD. The published

results, called the "100 Shooting Review Committee Report,"

discusses trends and general findings regarding shootings in the

City of Philadelphia. The published results showed the

following:

(1) The clearance rate (i.e., when an arrest was made or

a suspect that could not be arrested was identified) for

fatal shootings in 2020 was 37% and the rate for nonfatal

shootings was 18%.

(2) There has been a "marked increase" in the number of

people arrested for illegal gun possession without the

accusation of an additional offense, including a doubling in

arrests for illegal possession of a firearm without a license

since 2018.

(3) The initial and final bail amounts set by courts in

illegal possession of firearms cases declined between 2015

2022/90MSP/HR0240A05891 - 6 -

and 2019 and increased in 2020 and 2021.

(4) Conviction rates in shooting cases declined between

2016 and 2020 from 96% to 80% in fatal shootings and from 69%

to 64% in nonfatal shootings.

(5) There is a long-term trend of a reduction in

conviction rates for illegal gun possession cases, dropping

from 65% in 2015 to 45% in 2020.

In August 2022, the Philadelphia Police Commissioner

indicated that her department is short-staffed by approximately

20%, or 1,300 officers, due to low morale, politics, increased

scrutiny and "uniquely stringent hiring requirements" during a

nationwide shortage.

Police Commissioner Danielle Outlaw stated, "The truth is the

homicides are not happening in a vacuum - there are those who

are determined to attack and kill their victims. While we are

making constant adjustments to mitigate this sickening reality,

our officers, simply put, just can't keep up by being everywhere

at all times." While the PPD may arrest a suspect for the

commission of a crime, the Philadelphia District Attorney's

Office is one of the few district attorney's offices in this

Commonwealth that reserves unto itself the authority to charge a

person for a criminal act.

In October 2022, following yet another act of violence

against police in the City of Philadelphia, Police Commissioner

Danielle Outlaw issued the following statement:

"We are tired of arresting the same suspects over and over

again, only to see them right back out on the street to continue

and sometimes escalate their criminal ways. We are tired of

having to send our officers into harm's way to serve warrants on

suspects who have no business being on the street in the first

place.

No - not everyone needs to be in jail. But when we repeatedly

see the extensive criminal histories of those we arrest for

violent crime, the question needs to be asked as to why they

were yet again back on the street and terrorizing our

communities.

I am beyond disgusted by this violence. Our entire department

is sickened by what is happening to the people that live, work,

and visit our city. Residents are tired of it. Business owners

are tired of it. Our children are tired of it.

We are long past 'enough is enough'."

Acts of violence, and particularly violent crimes committed

with firearms, have exacted a heavy toll on victims and their

families, with countless lives unnecessarily lost or

irretrievably broken, due to the increase of violent crime in

the City of Philadelphia. The foregoing acts constitute

"misbehavior in office" by District Attorney Krasner in that

such acts have substantially contributed to the increase in

crime in the City of Philadelphia, undermined confidence in the

criminal justice system, and betrayed the trust of the citizens

of Philadelphia and the Commonwealth.

2022/90MSP/HR0240A05891 - 7 -

WHEREFORE, District Attorney Lawrence Samuel Krasner is

guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office

and disqualification to hold any office of trust or profit under

this Commonwealth.

ARTICLE II:

Misbehavior In Office In the Nature of Obstruction

of House Select Committee Investigation

House Resolution 216 of 2022 established the House Select

Committee to Restore Law and Order pursuant to Rule 51 of the

General Operating Rules of the House. The select committee is

authorized and empowered "to investigate, review and make

finding and recommendations concerning risking rates of crime,

law enforcement and the enforcement of crime victim rights," in

the City of Philadelphia.

House Resolution 216 further charges the select committee to

make findings and recommendations, including, but not limited

to, the following:

(1) Determinations regarding the performance of public

officials empowered to enforce the law in the City of

Philadelphia, including the district attorney, and

recommendations for removal from office or other appropriate

discipline, including impeachment.

(2) Legislation or other legislative action relating to

policing, prosecution, sentencing and any other aspect of law

enforcement.

(3) Legislation or other legislative action relating to

ensuring the protection, enforcement and delivery of

appropriate services and compensation to crime victims.

(4) Legislation or other legislative action relating to

ensuring the appropriate expenditure of public funds intended

for the purpose of law enforcement, prosecutions or to

benefit crime victims.

(5) Other legislative action as the select committee

finds necessary to ensure appropriate enforcement of law and

order in the City of Philadelphia.

In pursuit of these obligations, the resolution empowers the

select committee chair to, among other things, "send for

individuals and papers and subpoena witnesses, documents,

including electronically stored information, and any other

materials under the hand and seal of the chair." The chair

issued subpoenas to a number of Philadelphia municipal offices,

including the Controller, the Mayor, the Police Department, the

Sheriff's Office, the Treasurer and the District Attorney's

Office. The subpoenas sought nonprivileged records necessary to

fulfill the select committee's obligations to the House of

Representatives pursuant to House Resolution 216.

While other municipal offices worked cooperatively with the

select committee to respond to the subpoenas issued to them,

District Attorney Krasner and his office chose instead to

obstruct the select committee's work at every turn. District

Attorney Krasner and his office asserted that the select

2022/90MSP/HR0240A05891 - 8 -

committee was illegitimate and that its subpoenas served "no

valid legislative purpose, violating the separation of powers,

invading legal privileges, and seeking to deny the

constitutional rights of Philadelphia's citizens, especially

their democratic right to vote and choose their local leaders."

District Attorney Krasner asserted various claims that held

no basis in fact or law, including the following:

(1) District Attorneys are not subject to impeachment.

(2) Impeaching the District Attorney violates the

constitutional rights of the people who voted for him.

(3) The District Attorney committed no wrong, and

therefore was not required to comply with the committee

chair's subpoena.

(4) Impeachment of a public official requires a

conviction for a criminal act; and

District Attorney Krasner and his office refused to search

for or produce any documents in response to the subpoena.

Despite multiple attempts by counsel to the select committee

chair to bring District Attorney Krasner and his office into

compliance with the subpoenas, explaining on multiple occasions

that the select committee was seeking nonprivileged records and,

as it related to any record for which the District Attorney

believed were privileged, the District Attorney should follow

common practice in responding to a subpoena by providing a

privilege log to identify those records for which the District

Attorney asserts a privilege.

On September 12, 2022, after multiple exchanges between

counsel and a Request to Show Cause why the District Attorney

should not be held in contempt by the House, the select

committee issued an interim report pursuant to Rule 51 of the

General Operating Rules of the House of Representatives,

notifying the House of District Attorney Krasner's refusal to

comply with the subpoena and recommending that the House

consider contempt proceedings.

The House of Representatives adopted House Resolution 227 on

September 13, 2022, resolving that the House hold District

Attorney Krasner in contempt. House Resolution 227 was adopted

by a bipartisan vote of 162 to 38.

District Attorney Krasner filed an action in Commonwealth

Court on September 2, 2022, in which he raised the same

arguments that fail to have any meaningful basis in law or fact.

District Attorney Krasner and his office have since feigned

partial compliance with the subpoena, providing several public-

facing records obtained without the need to engage in any

legitimate effort to search for the records.

The select committee chair invited District Attorney Krasner

to testify before the select committee in executive session on

October 21, 2022. District Attorney Krasner refused to testify

in executive session, demanding a public hearing instead.

District Attorney Krasner then published a press release which

was misleading at best, mischaracterizing the invitation to

2022/90MSP/HR0240A05891 - 9 -

District Attorney Krasner to testify in yet another moment of

grandstanding.

Given the District Attorney's rejection of the invitation to

testify in executive session, the select committee was compelled

to cancel the hearing.

District Attorney Krasner has, at every turn, obstructed the

efforts of the House Select Committee on Restoring Law and

Order. He has consistently raised specious claims without a good

faith basis in law or fact. Even after the House of

Representatives resolved to hold him in contempt, District

Attorney Krasner's efforts to comply with subpoenas issued by

the select committee chair fall far short of what can be

considered a reasonable good faith effort.

WHEREFORE, District Attorney Lawrence Samuel Krasner is

guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office

and disqualification to hold any office of trust or profit under

this Commonwealth.

Article III:

Misbehavior In Office In the Nature of Violation of

the Rules of Professional Conduct and Code of

Judicial Conduct; specifically Rule 3.3 Candor Toward

the Tribunal, Rule 8.4 Professional Misconduct, and

Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct Impropriety

and Appearance of Impropriety in the Matter

of Robert Wharton v. Donald T. Vaughn

In the Federal habeas corpus proceeding in Robert Wharton v.

Donald T. Vaughn, Federal District Court Judge Goldberg issued a

memorandum order admonishing and sanctioning the District

Attorney's Office. Robert Wharton was convicted of murdering the

parents of survivor Lisa Hart-Newman, who was seven months old

at the time and was left to freeze to death with her deceased

parents by Mr. Wharton.

After his conviction, Wharton pursued a death penalty habeas

petition in the Federal district court. The District Attorney's

Office under prior administrations had opposed this petition.

In 2019, District Attorney Krasner's administration filed a

"Notice of Concession of Penalty Phase Relief," stating that it

would not seek a new death sentence, and, based on that

sentencing relief, the litigation and appeals could end. The

concession noted only that the decision to concede was made

"[f]ollowing review of this case by the Capital Case Review

Committee of the Philadelphia [District Attorney's Office],

communication with the victims' family, and notice to

[Wharton's] counsel."

Judge Goldberg undertook an independent analysis of the

merits of the claim and invited the Pennsylvania Office Attorney

General (OAG) to file an amicus brief in the case. In its

amicus, the OAG submitted additional facts that the District

Attorney's Office had not disclosed, including evidence of

prison misconducts, attempted escapes and Department of

Corrections concerns regarding "assaultiveness" and "escape" by

2022/90MSP/HR0240A05891 - 10 -

Mr. Wharton.

The OAG concluded that "given the facts of this investigation

and aggravating sentencing factors present in this case, Wharton

could not establish a reasonable probability that the outcome of

his penalty phase death sentence would have been different if

the jury had heard evidence of his alleged 'positive' prison

adjustment."

The OAG further determined that members of the family,

including victim Ms. Hart-Newman, were not contacted and that

they opposed the concession by the District Attorney's Office.

After an evidentiary hearing, Judge Goldberg held as follows:

(1) The District Attorney's Office failed to advise the

court of significant anti-mitigation evidence, including that

Mr. Wharton had made an escape attempt at a court appearance.

(2) Two of the office's supervisors violated Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(3) "based upon that Office's

representations to this Court that lacked evidentiary support

and were not in any way formed after 'an inquiry reasonable

under the circumstances.'"

(3) Representations of communication with the victims'

family were "misleading," "false," and "yet another

representation to the Court made after an inquiry that was

not reasonable under the circumstances."

(4) The Law Division Supervisor, Assistant Supervisor

and District Attorney's Office violated Rule 11(b)(1), and

concluding that the violation was "sufficiently 'egregious'

and 'exceptional' under the circumstances to warrant

sanctions."

Judge Goldberg imposed nonmonetary sanctions on the District

Attorney's Office, requiring that separate written apologies be

sent to the victim, Lisa Hart-Newman, and the victim's family

members. Given the testimony of the two Law Division supervisors

that District Attorney Krasner approved and implemented internal

procedures that created the need for this sanction, and that the

District Attorney had the sole, ultimate authority to direct

that the misleading Notice of Concession be filed, therefore

"the apologies shall come from the District Attorney, Lawrence

Krasner, personally."

District Attorney Krasner has the sole authority to approve

court filings on behalf of Philadelphia District Attorney's

office. While in office, District Attorney Krasner directed,

approved and or permitted the filing of a "Notice of

Concession" and presentation of other pleadings and statements

in Federal court which contained materially false and or

misleading affirmative statements and purposeful omissions of

fact in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.3

(Candor Toward the Tribunal) and Rule 8.4 (Professional

Misconduct), and Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2 (Impropriety

and or Appearance of Impropriety).

WHEREFORE, District Attorney Lawrence Samuel Krasner is

guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office

2022/90MSP/HR0240A05891 - 11 -

and disqualification to hold any office of trust or profit under

this Commonwealth.

Article IV:

Misbehavior In Office In the Nature of Violation of

the Rules of Professional Conduct; specifically

Rule 3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal, Rule 8.4

Professional Misconduct, and Canon 2 of the Code

of Judicial Conduct Impropriety and Appearance of

Impropriety in the matter of Commonwealth vs. Pownall

In his special concurrence in Commonwealth v. Pownall,

Supreme Court Justice Dougherty highlighted what he feared to be

an effort by the District Attorney's Office to deprive certain

defendants of a fair and speedy trial. Following the June 2017

incident in which former Philadelphia police officer Ryan

Pownall shot and killed David Jones, the District Attorney's

Office submitted the matter to an investigative grand jury. The

investigating grand jury issued a presentment recommending that

Pownall be charged with criminal homicide, possession of an

instrument of crime and recklessly endangering another person;

and

During trial, the prosecutor filed a motion in limine to

preclude the standard peace officer justification defense

instruction, based on the assertion that the instruction, which

largely tracked language of statute, violated Fourth Amendment

prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure. The motion

was denied and the prosecution appealed to the Superior Court,

which quashed the appeal as unauthorized. The Supreme Court

granted the prosecutor's request for allowance of appeal.

The Supreme Court ultimately denied the appeal, but the

special concurrence filed by Justice Dougherty illuminated

startling behavior by the District Attorney's Office. Justice

Dougherty held that the District Attorney's Office's actions

during grand jury process "implicate[s] a potential abuse" and

stated that "the presentment in this case is perhaps best

characterized as a 'foul blow.'" He referred to the grand jury

presentment, authored by the District Attorney's Office, as a

"gratuitous narrative."

Justice Dougherty also recognized that any abuse of the grand

jury could have been remedied by "Statutory safeguards embedded

in the process," such as a preliminary hearing. He went on to

say "What is troubling is the DAO's effort to ensure that would

not occur," i.e., their filing of a motion to bypass the

preliminary hearing.

Justice Dougherty found it "inexplicable" that, in presenting

a bypass motion to the Court of Common Pleas, the District

Attorney's Office failed to highlight the Investigating Grand

Jury Act section 4551(e), which directs that a defendant "shall"

be entitled to a preliminary hearing. He emphasized that the

District Attorney's Office "appear[ed] to have known [about that

requirement] at the time it filed its motion."

As it related to the prosecutor's motion in limine and

2022/90MSP/HR0240A05891 - 12 -

interlocutory appeal, Justice Dougherty observed that the

District Attorney's Office's motion "presented only half the

relevant picture." He went on to say that "this type of advocacy

would be worrisome coming from any litigant," but coming from a

prosecutor, "is even more concerning, particularly in light of

the motion's timing...." He cited directly to Pennsylvania Rule

of Professional Conduct 3.3 regarding candor to the tribunal.

Further referencing ethical concerns, Justice Dougherty found

that the timing of the motion in limine, "[w]hen combined with

the other tactics highlighted throughout this concurrence,"

could lead to the conclusion that the decision to take "an

unauthorized interlocutory appeal was intended to deprive [Mr.

Pownall] of a fair and speedy trial." Justice Dougherty went on

to say:

Now, for the first time before this Court, the DAO finally

admits its true intent in all this was simply to use

Pownall's case as a vehicle to force judicial determination

on 'whether Section 508(a)(1) is facially unconstitutional.'

DAO's Reply Brief at 1; see id. at 6 (asserting Section 508's

applicability to [Pownall] is not the subject of this

appeal"). What's more, despite having assured the trial court

it was not trying 'to bar [Pownall] from a defense[.]' N.T.

11/25/2019 at 8, the DAO now boldly asserts it would be

appropriate for this Court to rewrite the law and

retroactively apply it to Pownall's case because he

supposedly 'had fair notice of his inability to rely on this

unconstitutional defense[.]' DAO's Brief at 10.

Justice Dougherty concluded, "Little that has happened in

this case up to this point reflects procedural justice. On the

contrary, the DAO's prosecution of Pownall appears to be "driven

by a win-at-all-cost office culture" that treats police officers

differently than other criminal defendants. DAO CONVICTION

INTEGRITY UNIT REPORT, OVERTURNING CONVICTIONS - AND AN ERA 2

(June 15, 2021) available at tinyurl.com/CIU report (last

visited July 19, 2022). This is the antithesis of what the law

expects of a prosecutor."

On remand, Common Pleas Court Judge McDermott said that there

were "so many things wrong" with the District Attorney's

Office's instructions to the investigating grand jury that it

warranted dismissing all charges against Mr. Pownall. After

hearing testimony from the assistant district attorneys who

handled the grand jury and preparation of the presentment, Judge

McDermott concluded that the District Attorney's Office failed

to provide the legal instructions to the grand jurors on the

definitions for homicide and information regarding the use-of-

force defense.

In her October 17, 2022, Statement of Findings of Fact and

Conclusions of Law, Judge McDermott stated, "The Commonwealth

made an intentional, deliberate choice not to inform the grand

jurors about the justification defense under Section 508. While

[the ADA] was aware of Section 508 and its applicability to the

2022/90MSP/HR0240A05891 - 13 -

Defendant's case at the time of the Grand Jury proceedings, she

decided not to advise the Grand Jury about Section 508 after

consulting with other, more senior Assistant District

Attorneys."

As it related to Pownall's right to a preliminary hearing,

Judge McDermott wrote:

In its Motion to bypass the preliminary hearing, the

Commonwealth demonstrated a lack of candor to the Court by

misstating the law and providing Judge Coleman with incorrect

case law.

* * *

The Commonwealth was also disingenuous with the Court

when it asserted that it had good cause to bypass the

preliminary hearing under Pa.R.Crim.P. 565(a) because of the

complexity of the case, the large number of witnesses the

Commonwealth would have to call, the expense, and the delay

caused by a preliminary hearing. As a preliminary hearing was

not held in this case, the Defendant's due process rights

were violated and the Defendant suffered prejudice.

Judge McDermott told the District Attorney's Office that if

defense counsel had made the decisions that the District

Attorney's Office made, she would "declare them incompetent."

The District Attorney's Office's own expert report from Gregory

A. Warren, Ed.D., of American Law Enforcement Training and

Consulting concluded that, given all the facts presented to him,

Officer Pownall's "use of deadly force in this case was

justified." This expert report was withheld from Pownall by the

District Attorney's Office.

District Attorney Krasner has the sole authority to approve

court filings on behalf of Philadelphia District Attorney's

office. While in office District Attorney Krasner directed,

approved and or permitted the filing of motions, presentations

of other pleadings and statements to the Grand Jury and the

Court which intentionally omitted, concealed and or withheld

material facts and legal authority relevant to the judicial

proceedings in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct,

Rule 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal), Rule 8.4 (Professional

Misconduct) and Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2 (Impropriety

and or Appearance of Impropriety).

WHEREFORE, District Attorney Lawrence Samuel Krasner is

guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office

and disqualification to hold any office of trust or profit under

this Commonwealth.

Article V:

Misbehavior In Office In the Nature of Violation of

the Rules of Professional Conduct and Code of

Judicial Conduct; specifically Rule 3.3 Candor to

Tribunal, Rule 8.4 Professional Misconduct, and Canon

2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct Impropriety and

Appearance of Impropriety in the matter In

re: Conflicts of Interest of Philadelphia District

2022/90MSP/HR0240A05891 - 14 -

Attorney's Office

During sworn testimony, District Attorney Krasner withheld

material facts from the Supreme Court when he testified under

oath before the Supreme Court's Special Master. The Special

Master was appointed by the Supreme Court pursuant to its King's

Bench jurisdiction to investigate whether District Attorney

Krasner had a conflict of interest favoring the defendant and

appellant, Mumia Abu-Jamal, who had been convicted of first-

degree murder of Officer Daniel Faulkner. District Attorney

Krasner testified that he "never represented any advocacy

organization for Mumia Abu-Jamal."

While affirmatively stating he never represented an

"organization" which advocated for Mumia Abu-Jamal, District

Attorney Krasner omitted the fact that he had, in fact,

represented at least one pro-Mumia activist who was arrested for

seeking to intimidate the judge deciding Abu-Jamal's Post

Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA") Petition. That activist, who at

the time was the "Director" of the "Youth Action Coalition," was

arrested along-side local leaders of The International Concerned

Family and Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal, all of whom were

protesting outside the home of Abu-Jamal's PCRA judge in an

effort to illegally influence the very proceedings at issue in

Mumia Abu-Jamal's nunc pro tunc appeal.

District Attorney Krasner represented this "Director," and

potentially other pro-Mumia activists, against charges for

violating a criminal statute that prohibits protesting outside

the homes of judicial officers to influence the outcome of cases

pending before the judicial officers. Yet, in testifying that he

"never represented any advocacy organization for Mumia Abu-

Jamal," District Attorney Krasner omitted these material facts,

providing a partial and misleading disclosure regarding his

connection to the effort to exonerate and free Mumia Abu-Jamal.

District Attorney Krasner's misleading disclosure was directly

relevant to the subject matter under investigation by the

Supreme Court in that he was concealing material facts

concerning his conflicts of interest in the Mumia Abu-Jamal

matter, an issue at the very heart of the Supreme Court's review

of the King's Bench Petition filed by the widow of Officer

Faulkner. District Attorney Krasner therefore violated Rules of

Professional Conduct, Rule 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal),

Rule 8.4 (Professional Misconduct) and Code of Judicial Conduct,

Canon 2 (Impropriety and or Appearance of Impropriety).

WHEREFORE, District Attorney Lawrence Samuel Krasner is

guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office

and disqualification to hold any office of trust or profit under

this Commonwealth.

Article VI:

Misbehavior in Office in Nature of

Violation of Victims Rights

Federal and State law provides for certain rights for victims

related to the prosecution and sentencing of the defendants who

2022/90MSP/HR0240A05891 - 15 -

victimized them or their family members (18 U.S.C. § 3771 (b)(2)

(A) and section 201 of the act of November 24, 1998 (P.L.882,

No.111), known as the Crime Victims Act). Chief among the rights

provided to victims is the right to be kept informed at all

stages of the prosecution through clear, respectful and honest

communication and to be consulted with regard to sentencing.

District Attorney Krasner repeatedly violated, and allowed

Assistant District Attorneys under his supervision to violate,

the Federal and state victims' rights acts on multiple occasions

by specifically failing to timely contact victims, deliberately

misleading victims and or disregarding victim input and treating

victims with contempt and disrespect.

WHEREFORE, District Attorney Lawrence Samuel Krasner is

guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office

and disqualification to hold any office of trust or profit under

this Commonwealth.

Article VII:

Misbehavior In Office In the Nature of Violation

of the Constitution of Pennsylvania By Usurpation

of the Legislative Function

Pursuant to Article II of the Constitution of Pennsylvania,

the legislative power is vested in the General Assembly.

District Attorney Krasner as an elected executive in the City of

Philadelphia has no authority to create, repeal or amend any

state law. Despite this clear separation of powers, District

Attorney Krasner has contravened the authority of the

legislature by refusing to prosecute specifically prohibited

conduct under state law. Rather than exercising his inherent

discretionary powers to review and determine charges on a case-

by-case basis, District Attorney Krasner, in his capacity as the

Commonwealth's Attorney in the City of Philadelphia,

unilaterally determined, directed and ensured that certain

crimes would no longer be prosecuted and were therefore de facto

legal.

These crimes include prostitution, theft and drug-related

offenses, among others. In particular, the de facto legalization

of prostitution by District Attorney Krasner has had a

devastating impact on women who are victims of sex trafficking

and the communities where they are trafficked. Refusing to

prosecute retail theft of property with less than a value of

$500, District Attorney Krasner has created an atmosphere of

lawlessness in Philadelphia, with the direct effect of causing

businesses to curtail activity or cease doing business

altogether in Philadelphia. District Attorney Krasner's refusal

to prosecute those caught driving under the influence of

marijuana, aside from contributing to the lawlessness in the

city, has created dangerous situations for the health, safety

and welfare of the people in Philadelphia. District Attorney

Krasner de facto legalizing such acts that the General Assembly

has determined to be illegal is a clear usurpation of

legislative powers in violation of the Constitution of

2022/90MSP/HR0240A05891 - 16 -

Pennsylvania, and thus constitutes misbehavior in office.

WHEREFORE, District Attorney Lawrence Samuel Krasner is

guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office

and disqualification to hold any office of trust or profit under

this Commonwealth.

The House of Representatives hereby reserves to itself the

right and ability to exhibit at any time after adoption of this

resolution further or more detailed Articles of Impeachment

against District Attorney Lawrence Samuel Krasner, to reply to

any answers that District Attorney Lawrence Samuel Krasner may

make to any Articles of Impeachment which are exhibited and to

offer proof at trial in the Senate in support of each and every

Article of Impeachment which shall be exhibited by them.

Upon the articles of impeachment against Lawrence Samuel

Krasner, Philadelphia District Attorney, being signed by the

Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Speaker shall

appoint a committee of three members, two from the majority

party and one from the minority party, to exhibit the same to

the Senate, and on behalf of the House of Representatives to

manage the trial thereof.

The expenses of the committee shall be paid by the Chief

Clerk from appropriation accounts under the Chief Clerk's

exclusive control and jurisdiction upon a written request

approved by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the

Majority Leader of the House of Representatives or the Minority

Leader of the House of Representatives.

2022/90MSP/HR0240A05891 - 17 -