Com. v. Washington, A. ( 2015 )

J-S37015-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
ANTHONY WASHINGTON
Appellant No. 969 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 13, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0011611-2011
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., SHOGAN, J., and LAZARUS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED JULY 21, 2015
Appellant, Anthony Washington, appeals from the judgment of
sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas,
following his jury trial convictions for first-degree murder, criminal
conspiracy, and possessing instruments of crime (“PIC”).1 We affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant
facts and procedural history of this case.2 Therefore, we have no reason to
restate them.
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(a), 903(c), and 907(a), respectively.
2
On September 5, 2014, the court ordered Appellant to file a concise
statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
On October 2, 2014, Appellant untimely filed a Rule 1925(b) statement, but
requested the court to consider the statement as timely. The court
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S37015-15
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
IS [APPELLANT] ENTITLED TO AN ARREST OF JUDGMENT
ON ALL CHARGES, INCLUDING MURDER IN THE FIRST
DEGREE, CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY AND PIC, WHERE THERE
IS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN THE VERDICT?
IS [APPELLANT] ENTITLED TO A NEW TRIAL ON ALL
CHARGES WHERE THE VERDICT IS AGAINST THE
GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE?
(Appellant’s Brief at 3).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Steven R.
Geroff, we conclude Appellant’s sufficiency of the evidence claim merits no
relief.3 The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly
disposes of the question presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed
December 19, 2014, at 60-61) (finding: Victim’s cause of death was ruled
homicide; during altercation at bar between Appellant and others several
days earlier, Victim’s friend shot at Appellant; evidence demonstrated
Appellant planned to kill Victim; on date of murder, Appellant learned of
Victim’s location, arrived at location armed with .40 caliber Beretta, recruited
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
subsequently entered an order on October 7, 2014, which accepted
Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement as timely filed.
3
In his first issue, Appellant fails to provide any argument regarding the
sufficiency of the evidence for his convictions of conspiracy and PIC.
Therefore, these claims are waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a); Coulter v.
Ramsden, 94 A.3d 1080, 1088 (Pa.Super. 2014) (stating: “Appellate
arguments which fail to adhere to these rules may be considered waived,
and arguments which are not appropriately developed are waived”).
-2-
J-S37015-15
lookouts and getaway driver, and waited in alleyway for Victim to come out
of local club and get into car; Appellant walked up to Victim’s car and fired
gun at Victim’s vital body parts (head and chest); expert testimony
established that any of fired shots would have killed Victim; Appellant sold
gun following murder to “boy in South Philly,” and ballistics evidence linked
gun recovered from trunk of buyer’s car to fired cartridge casings and
bullets; Appellant told multiple people about murdering Victim and bragged
about it; killing was willful, deliberate and premeditated; evidence was
sufficient to sustain murder conviction). The record supports Appellant’s
convictions. Accordingly, we affirm Appellant’s sufficiency issue on the basis
of the trial court’s opinion.
In his second issue, Appellant challenges the weight of the evidence.
“[A] challenge to the weight of the evidence must be raised with the trial
judge or it will be waived.” Commonwealth v. Gillard, 850 A.2d 1273,
1277 (Pa.Super. 2004), appeal denied, 581 Pa. 672, 863 A.2d 1143 (2004)
(internal quotation marks omitted). A claim challenging the weight of the
evidence generally cannot be raised for the first time in a Rule 1925(b)
statement. Commonwealth v. Burkett, 830 A.2d 1034 (Pa.Super. 2003).
An appellant’s failure to avail himself of any of the prescribed methods for
presenting a weight of the evidence issue to the trial court constitutes
waiver of that claim, even if the trial court responds to the claim in its Rule
1925(a) opinion. Id. Instantly, Appellant failed to raise a timely claim
-3-
J-S37015-15
regarding weight of the evidence. Rather, Appellant raised the claim for the
first time in his Rule 1925(b) statement. Therefore, Appellant’s weight of
the evidence claim is waived. See id.
Moreover, even if properly preserved, Appellant’s weight of the
evidence claim would merit no relief. The court concluded:
[T]he jury may regard evidence relating to the contents of
any prior inconsistent statement as proof of the truth of
anything each of these witnesses said in any earlier
statement, as well as consider this evidence to help the
jury assess the credibility and weight of the testimony of
each of these witnesses at trial. Although multiple
witnesses in the present case did not remember their
earlier statements against [Appellant] and made various
excuses for their memory lapses (for example, using
opiates for years (Rice); being shot in the face twice
(Childs); engaging in excessive drinking and fighting with
his wife (Cropper)), all of those witnesses made prior
statements to police. Those statements were damaging to
[Appellant], and the jury was free to believe them.
* * *
In the present case, witnesses Darian Brown (Blizz),
William Childs (O), and James Newsome (Hawk) had
criminal involvement in the death of [Victim] Omar
Williams, and as such, they were accomplices in the crime.
Although accomplice testimony was supported by copious
independent evidence in the present case, even in the
absence of such evidence the jury could still have found
[Appellant] guilty solely on the basis of accomplice
testimony if the jury was satisfied beyond a reasonable
doubt that the accomplice had testified truthfully and that
[Appellant] was guilty.
Here, the evidence presented at trial viewed in the light
most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner
established that [Appellant] has committed the crime of
murder of the first degree. The malice could have been
inferred, inter alia, from [Appellant’s] use of a deadly
-4-
J-S37015-15
weapon on vital parts of [Victim’s] body—his head and
chest. The evidence also demonstrated that [Appellant]
engaged in extensive planning for [Victim’s] murder and
employed other people to act. This court has noted that
“this could have almost been like an organized crime case”
complete with lookouts and a getaway driver. [Appellant]
then took a substantial step in furtherance of the
conspiracy by firing shots at [Victim] thereby murdering
him. In addition, the evidence demonstrated that
[Appellant] was in possession of an instrument of crime
and that he intended to employ it criminally.
Upon review of the challenge to the weight of the
evidence, this court concludes that the verdict was
consistent with the evidence. The jury was free to believe
all, part or none of the evidence, and it clearly found the
evidence to be credible and reliable.
We conclude, therefore, that the jury verdict did not shock
any sense of justice. No relief is due.
(Trial Court Opinion at 65-67) (citation to record omitted). Accordingly, we
affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/21/2015
-5-
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
TRIAL DIVISION - CRIMINAL SECTION
COMMONWEALTH OF CP- 51-CR-0011611-2011
PENNSYLVANIA
vs.
ANTHONY WASHINGTON
SUPERIOR COURT
NO. 969 EDA 2014
CP-51-CR-0011611-2011 Comm. v, Washington, Anthony
Opinion
OPINION D'EC 19 2014
11111111 11111111111111111 Crffi``i; .'\;l(``
JJ#r`` l
111.-1
UI
0·,·,
n,lJ1 Jtr~;~ f«:t,Jct of PA
I ,....; • -
7236940051
GEROFF, J. UECEMBER 19, 2014
On March 13, after a jury trial, the Defendant, Anthony Washington (nicknamed "Ant,"
"Peanut"), was convicted of murder of the first degree, conspiracy to commit first-degree
murder, and possessing an instrument of crime. (N.T. Volume 1, 03/13/2014, pp. 128-29). Also
on March 13, 2014, this court sentenced the Defendant to a mandatory term of life imprisonment
without possibility of parole for the offense of murder of the first degree, and a consecutive term
of ten (10) to twenty (20) years on the charge of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder. No
further penalty was imposed on the charge of possessing an instrument of crime. (N.T. Volume
1, 03/13/2014, pp. 135-36).
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
On or about March 21, 2014, the Defendant filed a timely Notice of Appeal through
Joseph C. Santaguida, Esquire, who represented the Defendant at trial. Following the filing of
Notice of Appeal on the Defendant's behalf, Attorney Santaguida filed a Motion to Withdraw
Appearance of Counsel and to Order the Lower Court to Appoint _Appellate Counsel which was
granted by the Superior Court on May 5, 2014. On May 14, 2014, the Court of Common Pleas
of Philadelphia County appointed David Scott Rudenstein, Esquire, to represent the Defendant in
forma pauperis.
On September 5, 2014, this court ordered counsel for the Defendant to file a concise
Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal pursuant to PA. R.A.P. § 1925(b). On October 2,
2014, counsel for the Defendant filed a concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal,
indicating that the necessary notes of testimony were unavailable at the time of his appointment.
Counsel for the Defendant requested permission to file a supplemental statement by October 9,
2014, once counsel fully read the six (6) volumes of transcript of the trial record to determine
what issues had been preserved for appeal. To avoid the possibility of waiver of otherwise
previously preserved issues on appellate review, Attorney Rudenstein requested that this court
issue an Order that would accept the l 925(b) Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, -
filed on October 2, 2014, as timely filed. On October 3, 2014, this court ordered that the
Defendant's request be granted and that the 1925(b) Statement of Matters, or Supplemental
Statement of Matters, if filed on or before October 9, 2014, be deemed timely filed.
In his Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, the Defendant argues that he is
entitled to an arrest of judgment because the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict
which found the Defendant guilty of first-degree murder, possessing an instrument of crime
(PIC), and conspiracy to commit murder.
2
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
The Defendant also argues that he should be awarded a new trial because the verdict is
not supported .by the greater weight of the evidence. Relying on Commonwealth v. Karkaria,
533 Pa. 412, 625 A.2d 1167 (1993), 1 the Defendant claims that the greater weight of the
evidence did not establish that the Defendant was a principal, a conspirator, or an accomplice
with regard to any of the crimes charged.
THE EVIDENCE
The evidence adduced at trial established that on November 29, 2009, shortly after 5:00
o'clock in the morning, the Defendant shot and killed Omar Williams in the 6100 block of
Market Street in Philadelphia after the victim entered his parked vehicle. The killing was
preceded by an incident at the Copabanana Bar a few days before, involving a verbal altercation
between the Defendant and the victim followed by the victim's friend firing shots at the
Defendant and his people. The Defendant recruited his cousins, Darian Brown (nicknamed
"Blizz") and James Newsome (nicknamed "Hawk"), as his lookouts for the planned murder. He
also used his neighborhood friend, William Childs (nicknamed "O"), as his getaway driver.
The Murder
Police Officer Anthony Washington (no relation) testified that on Sunday, November 29,
2009, he was working a "last-out tour" - from 12:00 am to 8:00 am - with his partner, Police
Officer Stark (first name not stated). They were in a marked patrol vehicle, and Officer
Washington was the driver. Officer Washington testified that shortly after 5:00 am he received a
I
Defendant's reliance on Commonwealth v. Karkaria) is misplaced. In Karkaria, the court held that evidence was
not sufficient to support defendant's conviction for forcible rape; the victim's testimony as to when any particular act
of rape occurred was vague and contradictory; initially, she testified that assaults occurred only on Friday or
Saturday evenings, and thereafter testified that assaults occurred at another time; moreover, she insisted that the
assaults occurred only when defendant was babysitting, and yet she also admitted that during the time period
charged in the indictment, defendant no longer acted as babysitter.
3
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
radio assignment alerting him of a person with a gun and a report of a shooting at 61 st and
Market Streets. (N.T. Volume 1, 03/05/2014, pp. 57-59).
Officer Washington and his partner immediately proceeded to that location, with lights
and sirens activated. Upon their arrival moments later, Officer Washington observed a silver
Honda Accord on the comer facing the Ron and Jess Place bar. The car appeared to have been
involved in an accident. (N.T. Volume 1, 03/05/2014, pp. 60-61).
Officer Washington exited his patrol car and went to the driver's door side. He could
hear the engine "revving real, real loud from the car." The car had tinted windows. When
Officer Washington opened the door, he saw a male inside. Based on his experience, Officer
Washington determined that the man was shot in the head. He also observed a gunshot wound to
the right side of the victim's cheekbone, next to his ear. There was blood coming from the right
side of his head. There was also blood and brain matter on the driver's side of the window.
Officer Washington had to remove the victim's feet from the gas pedal. The victim was
unresponsive; he had no pulse. Officer Washington testified that based on his experience with
gunshot victims, the male was not alive. (N.T. Volume 1, 03/05/2014, pp. 61-62).
The victim was pronounced dead after the paramedics and the Philadelphia Fire
Department came to the scene. Officer Washington testified that he believed that he was still at
the scene when someone from the Medical Examiner's Office came out as well. There was
extensive damage to the victim's vehicle. There was also a hole in the wall of the Ron and Jess
Place Bar, where the car had impacted. The car bounced off the wall and was stuck on the curb
on the South side of Market Street. (N.T. Volume 1, 03/05/2014, pp. 63-64).
Police secured the entire area - from 601h and Market Streets to 61 st and Market Streets -
as a crime scene and roped it off with yellow tape. Officer Washington and other officers then
4
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
searched the entire block for fired cartridge casings, and they located some on the north side of
Market Street. (N.T. Volume 1, 03/05/2014, p. 64).
Officer Washington confirmed at trial that the photographs of the decedent's vehicle
accurately depicted the damage to the passenger's side of the vehicle. The photographs showed
two bullet holes to the rear of the victim's car, and one bullet hole to its front. No projectiles
were recovered from the car. (N.T. Volume 1, 03/05/2014, pp. 73-74).
Officer Washington remained at the crime scene until daybreak. He then went down to
the Homicide Unit, where he was interviewed at 7:15 in the morning. (N.T. Volume 1,
03/05/2014, pp. 75-76).2
Antoine Rice testified that he was 27 years old and that he grew up in West Philadelphia.
He stated that the Defendant was his childhood friend. Rice confirmed that he was also friendly
with the Defendant back in 2009, and that they would sometime go out and drink and party.
Rice would also hang out with the Defendant at the Defendant's house on a regular basis. He
indicated that he knew neither James Newsome (Hawk), nor Darian Brown (Blizz), and that he
never saw them at the Defendant's house. He also said that he did not know William Childs (0),
and had never heard anyone ever mention O's name. (N.T. Volume 1, 03/05/2014, pp. 86-89).
Rice testified that he had been at the Copabanana Bar on a few occasions but that he had
never been there with the Defendant. He also noted that he had not been at that bar in November
2009. Rice stated that he did not know the victim, Omar Williams, nicknamed "Cracks," and
that he had never heard anyone say his name. He also said that while he had heard about an
2
On cross-examination, Officer Washington stated that he did not recall mentioning to homicide detectives that a
black female was standing next to the car door when he arrived on the scene. While he did not deny talking to the
female, he said, "I just don't remember five years later." Officer Washington explained that the focus of his attention
was the victim, not the other people who might have been on location. (N.T. Volume l, 03/05/2014, pp. 79, 84).
5
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
after-hours club, the Wheels of Soul, he had never been there personally and did not even know
the club's location. (N.T. Volume 1, 03/05/2014, pp. 89, 93-94).
Rice stated that he was unaware of any problem whatsoever between the Defendant and
Cracks. Healso said that he had no idea that in the early morning hours of November 29, 2009,
someone had been shot to death at 615t and Market Streets. (N.T. Volume 1, 03/05/2014, pp. 95-
96).
Rice noted that he had never talked to the Defendant or his cousins, Brown (Blizz) and
Newsome (Hawk) about what had happened on November 29, 2009. He also did not recall ever
talking to the investigators about it. (N.T. Volume 1, 03/05/2014, p. 97).
When asked if anything happened between March 2010 and the trial that would have
affected his ability to recall matters or events, Rice answered in the affirmative. He explained
that he was addicted to opiates and stated that he had been in an outpatient rehab for six months
to treat his addiction. Although Rice confirmed that his addiction had not affected his ability to
remember where he worked, his business hours and office location, he testified that he had no
recollection of giving an interview to detectives in March of 2010. (N.T. Volume 1, 03/05/2014,
pp. 98-101).
When shown the statement which he had given to Detective Mullen (first name not
stated) at Southwest Detectives on March 17, at 4:22 am, Rice confirmed that he recognized his
signature. However, he stated that he did not recall being interviewed at Southwest Detectives in
the early morning hours of March 17, 2010. (N.T. Volume 1, 03/05/2014, pp. 103-105).
Rice testified that he did not remember anything unusual happening on March 16, 2010.
He did not remember that on that day, as he was sitting on the steps of a house on the 5700 block
of Addison, someone jumped out of a vehicle and fired shots at him. He also did not recall
6
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
having a firearm on him that day or firing back at someone. He said that he was not licensed to
carry a gun. He did not recall going down to Southwest Detectives and giving a statement or
being transported to the Homicide Unit at 8th and Race Streets afterwards. (N.T. Volume 1,
03/05/2014, pp. 106-108).
When shown a statement which he had given at Homicide, Rice confirmed that his name
was indeed written at the top of the statement, and that his biographical information was
accurate. He also confirmed that the statement contained the date, March 17, and the time, 11 :00
am, and that it said, ''We are questioning you concerning the shooting death of Omar Williams
on November 29, 2009." However, he reconfirmed that he had no recollection of being at the
Homicide Unit and denied giving a statement there. (N.T. Volume 1, 03/05/2014, p. 108).
On direct examination, · Rice either denied that he provided specific answers to the
investigators' questions on March 17, 2010 or stated that he did not remember those questions.
Rice also stated that he did not remember any of the investigators. He also testified that he did
not remember telling the investigators that he had information regarding the murder of Omar
Williams on November 29, 2009 on the 6100 block of Market Street and that he knew who had
committed it. He did not recall saying that he was not present when the murder occurred. (N.T.
Volume 1, 03/05/2014, pp. 109-112). He also did not recall saying to the investigators:
This all started when we was down at a bar called Copa's. It's at 40th and Spruce
Streets.3 We was in the bar. It was me, Ant, and 0. We was in the bar and Ant and Crack
[sic], the guy who got killed, got into an argument. When Ant and Crack was arguing,
one of Crack's friends who they call Nah pulled out a gun and starting shooting at Ant.
(N.T. Volume 1, 03/05/2014, p. 112).
Rice did not remember saying, "Ant didn't get hit but one of the bouncers in the bar got
shot. We all left the bar and that's why Crack got killed a couple of days later." Furthermore, he
3
Witness William Childs (0) stated that the Copabanana Bar is located at 401h and Sansom Streets. (N.T. Volume
3, 03/07/2014, p. 47).
7
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
did not remember saying in his statement, "Ant told me that he did it." (N.T. Volume 1,
03/05/2014, p. 113).
Rice stated that he did not remember being asked what the Defendant told him about the
incident, and that he did not recall saying to the investigators that the day after the shooting, the
Defendant called him on the phone and said, "Yo, watch the news." Rice also did not remember
stating that he turned on the news and saw Cracks' white Honda; he did not recall learning from
the news that "the guy got killed." He had no memory of calling the Defendant afterwards and
asking him if he had done it. Rice also had no recollection of meeting the Defendant the
morning after the shooting and talking to him about the incident. (N.T. Volume 1, 03/05/2014,
pp. 115-16).
Rice confirmed that in the past they indeed used to hang out at the corner of 571h and
Addison Streets. However, he said he did not remember saying:
I went outside and Ant was on the comer. I went and talked to him, and he told me
everything that went down. Ant said that him, 0, Blizz, and Hawk was all part of it and
said that they set up on Crack's car because they found out where he was at. Ant said that
Blizz and Hawk was the lookouts and that O was the driver. Ant told me that he shot
Crack.
(N. T. Volume 1, 03/05/2014, p. 117).
When asked if he could have very well said all of that but just did not recall because of
his addiction, Rice answered in the affirmative. (N.T. Volume 1, 03/05/2014, p. 118).
Rice noted that he did not remember telling the investigators:
Ant said that he was set up near an alleyway and when Crack came by Ant shot him and
then ran down the alleyway to where the car was at. I asked Ant how they knew where
Crack was at, and Ant told me that he got a phone call from somebody and they told Ant
that Crack was at the Wheels of Soul club on Market Street. So they went up there and
just waited for him to come out.
(N.T. Volume l, 03/05/2014, p. 120).
8
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
Rice stated he did not remember being asked if he had known what kind of gun the
Defendant used to shoot the decedent. He also did not recall saying, "Ant told me that it was a
.40-caliber. Ant sold it to some boy in South Philly after he shot Crack." (N.T. Volume 1,
03/05/2014, pp. 120-21).
Rice also did not remember saying that Ant's car, a Delta '88, a green car with tinted
windows, was used as a getaway car but that O was the driver. Rice noted that although he and
the Defendant lived right around the comer from one another, he did not know what kind of car
the Defendant was driving and that he had never seen the Defendant in a vehicle. (N.T. Volume
1, 03/05/2014, pp. 121-22).
Rice denied saying to the detectives that O is William Childs and that he had known him
for about five years. He also stated that he did not recognize his signature on the statement. He
denied saying that Blizz's real name was Darian Brown and that he had known him for about
four or five years. He stated that he did not remember saying that he had met Blizz and Hawk at
the same time, that they were "Ant's cousins," and that he met them through the Defendant.
Rice confirmed that he still considered himself a close friend of the Defendant. (N.T. Volume 1,
03/05/2014, pp. 123-26).
When shown the photograph of the Defendant with "Ant " written on top of it, Rice said
that he did not recognize the penmanship and that he also did not remember if the signature was
indeed his. However, when asked if that could be his signature, he answered in the affirmative.
(N.T. Volume 1, 03/05/2014, pp. 128-29).
Rice stated that he had no recollection of being shown a video of certain people standing
on a street comer, contrary to the statement he gave to the investigators:
"Question: You were shown a video of two males who were standing on the comer
outside of a store; is that correct?
9
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
"Answer: Yes.
"Question: Were you able to identify the two males that you saw on the video?
"Answer: Yeah. It was Hawk and Blizz, Ant's cousins. Blizz has a cast on his hand. He
told me that he broke his hand fighting with someone. Hawk is the one talking on the cell
phone in the video."
Sir, do you remember that?
A. No, sir.
Q. And when you say you don't remember, this could have been your answer; you just
don't remember, correct?
A. Yes, sir.
(N.T. Volume 1, 03/05/2014, p. 131).
Rice also noted that he did not remember stating that he showed Detective Peterman
Blizz's and Hawk's photographs from his Facebook page. In fact, he denied even having a
Facebook page. He recognized his own photo but said that he did not recognize the person
standing off to his left in the photo, Darian Brown. He also said that he typically poses in
photographs with people he does not know and that he probably was high on drugs when the
photograph was taken. The penmanship on top of the photographs did not look familiar to him as
well.4 (N.T. Volume 1, 03/05/2014, pp. 131-36).
Rice did not remember ever talking to any of the Defendant's cousins about what had
happened to the victim. He did not remember stating: "I talked to Blizz and Hawk. They both
just said that they was there. They said that they 'fell back' when the shooting happened. 0 never
talked to me about it." (N.T. Volume 1, 03/05/2014, p. 137).
He stated he had no recollection of reading the statement to make sure that everything in
it was true and correct, and signing his name on each of the four pages of the statement. He also
denied identifying and signing the photographs. He indicated that he did not recognize the
penmanship on the signature and the date. (N.T. Volume l, 03/05/2014, p. 138).
4
Although Rice stated that he did not have a Facebook account, District Attorney reminded him that Rice gave his
account number AntoineRice@Gmail.com and password TRAP57 to Detective Mullen from Homicide. Rice said
that he, in fact, had never heard that password before. (N.T. Volume I, 03/05/2014, pp. 147-48).
10
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
Rice also stated that he did not remember detectives ever showing him a Statement of
Adoption Attestation. Rice, in fact, stated that he did not recognize that document and the
signature on it. He also did not remember Detective Bamberski (first name not stated) signing it.
(N.T. Volume 1, 03/05/2014, pp. 139-42).
In addition, Rice had no memory of any incident at the bar in West Philadelphia where
shots were fired shortly before the incident. (N.T. Volume 1, 03/05/2014, p. 142-43).
The Commonwealth then directed him to look at the statement he had given at Southwest
Detectives on March 17, at 5:22 am (prior to giving his statement at Homicide):
"Question: What time did you arrive on the 5600 block of Addison Street on 3/16/1 O?
"Answer: I'd say about 4:30 or 5:00 p.m.
"Question: What were you doing around there? What was your purpose for being there?
"Answer: "Basically I was going to see Donna ...... We were sitting outside talking. Then
a white Mercury came up Addison Street.... One of the gentlemen hopped out of the back
passenger seat. This guy had a gun out already. He started firing at me. I started firing
back at him. As the guy was firing, my friend, William Childs, ran his daughter into
Donna's house. As I finished firing, I ran into the house to make sure the baby was okay.
Then I ran through the alleyway that exits out on to my block, 5600 Osage. I ran into my
house. I was telling my grandmother what happened. I went back outside. I went through
the alleyway, and there were two cops standing there in the alleyway. I let them know I
was the shooter. The cops took my gun, and they took my permit out of my wallet, then
they brought me here."
(N.T. Volume 1, 03/05/2014, p. 146).
Rice stated that he did not remember being shot at on March 16, or pulling a gun and
shooting at anyone. He agreed, however, that if someone shot at him that would be a startling
event, and that if he had to pull out his gun and fire, that would be "a pretty big deal." (N.T.
Volume 1, 03/05/2014, p. 146).
Police Officer Brian Stark, a member of the Crime Scene Unit, testified that he was on
duty on Sunday, November 29, 2009, in the early morning hours. He worked midnight to 8:15
am that day, with William Whitehouse, a Crime Scene Investigator (CSI). On November 29,
11
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
2009, at 5:25 am, Detective Centeno (first name not stated) of the Homicide Unit notified them
of the incident at 6000 Market Street. (N.T. Volume 2, 3/6/2014, pp. 7-9).
Officer Stark stated that they arrived on location at 6: 15 am. It was cold and dry.
Upon checking in with the officer who was in control of the crime scene and meeting with
Detective Gall (first name not stated) and Detective Harkins (first name not stated) from the
Homicide Unit who were out at that scene, Officer Stark conducted a survey of the scene. 5 He
testified that when they did the walk-through, they identified multiple fired cartridge casings on
the highway in front of 6039 Market Street. There was a gray Honda Accord on the south side of
Market Street in front of 6054 Market, and it had front-end damage consistent with damage to
the facade of the property at 6054 Market: there was a hole in the property wall and debris
below the hole. A black male driver was in the driver's seat of the vehicle. The vehicle had
dark-tinted windows and it had three bullet holes in the front and back windows on the passenger
side. There was also a projectile embedded in the door frame between the front and rear doors
on the passenger side. (N.T. Volume 2, 3/6/2014, pp. 9-12, 26, 41-42).
Officer Stark stated that the scene was secured when they arrived, with no pedestrian or
vehicle traffic permitted. Officer Stark noted that there were five casings at the scene and that
they all were collected. The collected evidence was documented, packaged, placed on Property
5
Officer Stark stated that his training started in 1995 through the Crime Scene Unit. He was trained as a patrol
officer in collecting fingerprints from crime scene, and in 2000, he was transferred to the Crime Scene Unit. Officer
Stark noted that his job involves an ongoing training process and that whenever "the technology of techniques or
new methods arise, [they are] trained in those updates." He stated that over the past 14 years, he had been trained in
forensic photography and had been certified in many aspects of fingerprint collection and identification, blood
splatter analysis and reconstruction, videography, note-taking and drawing diagrams. (N.T. Volume 2, 3/6/2014, pp.
6-7).
12
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
Receipt No. 9010313, and then submitted to the Firearms Identification Unit for further testing.
(N.T. Volume 2, 3/6/2014, pp. 12, 14, 18, 30-33).6
The decedent's vehicle was later towed from that area and taken to the police garage, to
be searched for any other ballistic evidence. The vehicle was processed on November 30th at
12:40 p.m., the day after Officer Stark was at the crime scene. Officer Stark confirmed that he
reviewed a supplemental service report in reference to the original crime scene prepared from the
police garage processing of the decedent's Honda Accord by Police Officer Gain (first name not
stated) and CS! Leo Rayhill. The copper projectile embedded in the vehicle's door frame was
extracted, placed on Property Receipt No. 9010320, and submitted to the Firearms Identification
Unit for microscopic examination. (N.T. Volume 2, 3/6/2014, pp. 35-37, 41-42).
Officer Stark confirmed that the photographs taken on the scene, presented in conjunction
with one another, accurately depicted the north side of the street and various lots that existed
when he was out there that morning. He indicated that there did not appear to be any fencing to
prevent someone from walking in or out of those areas. (N.T. Volume 2, 3/6/2014, pp. 24-25).
Darian Brown (Blizz) testified that he is the Defendant's cousin. Brown stated that on
Saturday, November 28th, going into the early morning hours of Sunday, November 29, 2009, he
was at the location of 61 st and Market Streets when the victim was shot to death. (N. T. Volume
2, 3/6/2014, p. 46).
6
Officer Stark explained that the crime scene - the area of 6000 Market - was initially measured and documented
with a rough sketch. Later on, after all the measurements were taken and a formal diagram drawn to scale, the final
sketch was prepared. The sketch showed Millick Street to the right of the diagram, and 6151 street to the left of the
diagram, with the arrows indicating the direction of travel of the lanes of Market Street. The sketch also showed
vehicles No. 1 and No. 2, with No. 1 being the victim's Honda Accord, and No. 2 being the Chevy Beretta it struck.
The blue dots on the sketch indicated the location of the five fired cartridge cases, which were in the street just south
of the north sidewalk. (N.T. Volume 2, 3/6/2014, pp. 33-34).
13
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
Brown said that earlier that morning he had been at his apartment in Darby with James
Newsome, his cousin. Brown also testified that Newsome is also the Defendant's cousin. (N.T.
Volume 2, 3/6/2014, pp. 46-48).
Brown said that he knew William Childs (0) through the Defendant. Brown also noted
that he knew Antoine Rice, and that both he and Rice grew up around his grandmother's
neighborhood. He stated that Rice knew O and Newsome, and that they all had been hanging out
at sih and Addison together at various times. (N.T. Volume 2, 3/6/2014, p. 49).
Brown indicated that when they were at the apartment in Darby, his cousin Newsome
received a phone call from the Defendant. He also stated that .he did not hear any of that
telephone conversation, and that Newsome relayed to Brown its content afterwards. (N.T.
Volume 2, 3/6/2014, pp. 48, 50).
Newsome told him that the Defendant wanted both of them and Childs to meet at so" and
Market Street at the after-hours club, Wheels of Soul. Newsome explained to Brown that the
Defendant wanted him and Brown down there to serve as lookouts. Brown said that he did not
know what problem, if any, the Defendant had had with Cracks. He acknowledged, however, .
that, according to Newsome, there was some kind of gang war between the Defendant and
Cracks, and that the Defendant was planning to shoot Cracks. (N.T. Volume 2, 3/6/2014, pp.
51-54, 57).
After Newsome had updated Brown on the Defendant's intentions, they got in the car and
drove down so" Street to the Dewey Street block. Brown noted that the Defendant asked him
and Newsome to come down because he trusted them as his family. Brown understood that their
role would encompass being the lookouts and that in addition to looking for Cracks, they were
also supposed to be looking out for the police. (N.T. Volume 2, 3/6/2014, pp. 51-54, 57).
14
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
They parked on Dewey Street, and the Defendant and Childs showed up in about 20
minutes. Eventually, Brown and Newsome set up on Millick Street, outside the Puerto Rican
store, waiting for Cracks to come out of the after-hours club. They were stationed almost
directly across the street from the bar and were able to see people leaving the club. Brown stated
that the Defendant told him that Cracks drove a Honda Accord and also pinpointed for him the
vehicle's location as it was parked on Market Street. (N.T. Volume 2, 3/6/2014, pp. 55-57).
While Brown and Newsome were stationed on Millick Street, Childs and the Defendant
were positioned in the alleyway, which was "basically exactly in front of the victim's car."
Brown testified that the Defendant told him that he had a gun with him, a Glock .40. (N.T.
Volume 2, 3/6/2014, pp. 57-58).
Brown "paced back and forth" between Millick and Market Streets, waiting for the "final
time, for the let out" - when they expected the victim to leave the club. Brown was positioned
by the Puerto Rican store, which was about "two or three car lengths" from the victim's car.
From his location, he was able to get back into the cutout area where the Defendant and Childs
were stationed through an alleyway in the back of the store. Brown stated that he did not see the
Defendant on the phone with anyone from the club. Later on, Brown and Newsome left the
comer of Millick Street upon receiving a phone call from the Defendant, who instructed them to
go back in the alleyway. (N.T. Volume 2, 3/6/2014, pp. 58-62).
Finally, Cracks came walking down the street with two other people. Brown could see
the victim's Honda from where he was positioned. Brown noted that the victim was going
toward his car, while the other two individuals who were with him were walking on toward the
car parked on Millick Street. Once the victim got into his car, the Defendant came running out
of the alleyway, got to the victim's car, let off "three to five shots," then ran back into the
15
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
alleyway where Brown, Newsome, and Childs were still positioned. (N.T. Volume 2, 3/6/2014,
pp. 62-64).
Brown stated that he saw the Defendant fire the gun. When asked how the Defendant
was pointing the handgun at the passenger's side of the victim's car, Brown demonstrated by
using both of his hands. Brown also stated that after the shots were fired, the Honda ran into a
parked car, then hit a wall. All four of them then ran off; Brown and Newsome ran back toward
Dewey Street, got into Brown's car and drove off; the Defendant and Childs went a separate
way. (N.T. Volume 2, 3/6/2014, pp. 64-65, 109-111).
Brown stated that neither he nor Newsome carried a gun that night. Brown was not sure
if Childs had a gun. The only person whom he saw fire a gun that night was the Defendant.
Brown showed that the Defendant was about seven or eight feet away from the car when he was
firing the shots. (N.T. Volume 2, 3/6/2014, pp. 66-67).
Brown spoke with the Defendant later on that day at his grandmother's house in West
Philadelphia. The Defendant told him that he and Newsome should "lay low, stay out of the
way, and don't let it stress you or whatever because I did what I had to do so just hang in there."
(N.T. Volume 2, 3/6/2014, p. 67).
Brown testified that while he was with Newsome the night after the shooting, Newsome
received a phone call from the Defendant, who told him to turn on the news later that day. From
the news, Brown learned that Cracks was dead. (N.T. Volume 2, 3/6/2014, pp. 68-69).
Brown stated that he and the Defendant would "talk here and there" about the incident,
and that during those conversations, the Defendant would say something along the lines of "just
don't let it bother you, it's going to be all right." Brown said that he was worried because he
16
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
knew that the night of the incident he was under surveillance cameras the whole time. He could
see the cameras "right there." (N.T. Volume 2, 3/6/2014, pp. 69-70).
He testified that eventually there came a time when police officers and homicide
detectives came and got him and brought him down to Homicide for questioning. One of the
investigators was Detective Levi Morton. They explained his constitutional rights to him, and
Brown then made a statement about what had happened. The first time he talked to them, he
omitted his own involvement. He told the investigators, however, that he was a lookout. He also
told them that his cousin, the Defendant, had a gun with him. (N.T. Volume 2, 3/6/2014, pp. 71-
72).
Brown testified that, as a result of his statement and other evidence, Brown was charged
with murder of the first degree and conspiracy. His case was listed for trial almost two weeks
before the Defendant's trial before this court. Prior to going to trial, Brown talked with his
attorney, Brian McMonagle, about the possibility of cooperating. Attorney McMonagle then
reached out to the prosecutor, and it was agreed that Brown would testify at the Defendant's trial.
About two weeks before the Defendant's trial, Brown pied guilty to the charge of murder of the
third degree and conspiracy before this court. Brown understood that if he pied guilty and
testified against the Defendant, he could get a reduced sentence. He confirmed that the sentence
was to be set by this court. Brown said he understood that his obligation under the plea
agreement would be to tell the truth. He confirmed that he indeed was telling the jury what he
had seen that night. (N.T. Volume 2, 3/6/2014, pp. 73-75, 90-96, 98-100, 101-118).
Brown stated that between the time he arrived on Dewey Street, about an hour passed
before he observed the Defendant shoot the victim. He recognized himself and Newsome on a
video from about 3 :57 am that morning: they were looking in the direction of Market Street
17
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
where the victim's Honda Accord was parked.7 He confirmed that the video showed them
walking down Market Street toward the Puerto Rican store, then at some point going back to the
comer of Millick Street to look out for other people who might have been with the victim or for
police. (N.T. Volume 2, 3/6/2014, pp. 76-83).
Brown also recognized himself and Hawk on another video clip from about 4:41am or
4:42 am that morning. He stated that they were looking in the direction of the Wheels of Soul,
the after-hours club, while the Defendant and Childs were in the alleyway. Newsome was on the
phone with the Defendant at that time. (The Defendant wanted them back in the alleyway.) On a
photograph shown to him, Brown identified the victim's Honda as the vehicle into which the
Defendant had fired. (N.T. Volume 2, 3/6/2014, pp. 83-86).
Brown recognized a copy of the statement that he had given to Homicide investigators
back on November 30, 2010, when he was picked up for being involved in this incident and
spoke with Detectives Morton and Holmes. He confirmed that the he recognized the questions
of the detectives and his answers regarding the shooting death of Omar Williams. He stated that
he was not truthful when he said that someone gave him and Hawk a ride to 601h and Market
Streets. In fact, he was the one behind the wheel. He also stated that he was not truthful when
he stated to the Detectives Morton and Holmes that he did not witness the shooting and that he
did not know what car the victim was driving. Asked about what made him lie, Brown said that
he was in a hurry to get out of Homicide and go home. (N.T. Volume 2, 3/6/2014, pp.90-94).
Brown noted that it was not easy for him to come to the courtroom and tell what he saw
that morning and to identify the Defendant, his blood cousin, in front of family and friends. He
stated that it was not a "walk in the park." (N.T. Volume 2, 3/6/2014, p. 121).
7
Brown was wearing a sling because his arm was injured. (N.T. Volume 2, 3/6/2014, p. 81).
18
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
Detective Joseph Bamberski confirmed his involvement in the investigation. The
assigned detective on the case was Detective Howard Peterman. (N.T. Volume 3, 03/07/2014,
p. 7).
Detective Bamberski testified that he came in contact with Antoine Rice ("Twan") in
connection with Omar Williams' death and that he took a statement from Rice. Detective
Bamberski stated that he was aware that prior to giving a statement at Homicide, Rice had given
a statement to Detective Mullen at Southwest Detectives about his involvement in an incident in
Southwest Philadelphia. Rice told Detective Mullen that he had been shot at that morning and
that he fired back in self-defense. Because some of the information he provided to Detective
Mullen was relevant to the homicide which they were investigating, Rice was subsequently
brought from Southwest Detectives to the Homicide Unit. Detective Bamberski confirmed that
Rice gave his statement to Homicide on March 17, 2010. (N.T. Volume 3, 03/07/2014, p. 7-11,
34).
Detective Bamberski testified that Rice did not appear to be under the influence of either
drugs or alcohol when he met him and that he did not seem to express any reservation or
hesitation. Rice was not handcuffed during the interview. After having an informal conversation
with him, Detective Bamberski memorialized in writing the information that Rice was providing
to him about the shooting death of Omar Williams on 11/29/2009. Detective Kenneth Rossiter
was also present when Rice was making his statement. Rice was formally interviewed in one of
the cubicles at the Homicide Unit. (N.T. Volume 3, 03/07/2014, pp. 12-15).
In the interview, Rice stated that he had information regarding the murder of Omar
Williams and that he knew who killed him, though he personally was not present on the scene.
Rice stated that it all started when he, the Defendant (Ant), and Childs (0) were at a bar
19
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
8
"Copas," near 40s and Spruce Streets. The Defendant and Williams got into an argument. As
the Defendant and the victim were arguing, one of the victim's' friends, known as Little Nah,
pulled out a gun and started shooting at the Defendant. The Defendant was not shot, but one of
the bouncers in the bar was hit. After this incident, they all left the bar. A couple of days later,
the victim was killed. (N.T. Volume 3, 03/07/2014, pp. 15-16).
Rice stated that the Defendant told him that he, in fact, had killed the decedent:
The day after the shooting at Copas I talked to Ant, and he told me he was mad as shit,
and that he was going to get Crack for what happened. The day after that I was in my
house and Ant called me and asked me to come out but I was chilling in my house and I
didn't meet up with him. The next morning Ant called me on my phone and he was, like,
'Yo, watch the news.' I was watching the news and I saw the white Honda that Crack
always drives and the news was saying that the guy got killed. I called Ant up and I asked
him if that was him, did he do it. Ant said, 'I told you that I was going to get him.' .. .I
asked him who he was with and he asked me to come and meet him. I went outside and
Ant was on the comer. I went and talked to him and he told me everything that went
down. Ant said that him, 0, Blizz, and Hawk was all part of it. Ant said that they set up
on Crack's car because they found out where he was at. Ant said that Blizz and Hawk
was the lookouts and that O was the driver. Ant told me that he shot Crack. Ant said that
he was set up near an alleyway, and when Crack came by, Ant shot him and then ran
down the alleyway to where the car was at. I asked Ant how they knew where Crack was
at. Ant told me that he got a phone call from somebody, and they told Ant that Crack was
at the Wheels of Soul Club on Market Street. So they went up there and just waited for
him to come out.
(N.T. Volume 3, 03/07/2014, pp. 17-18).
Rice also stated that the Defendant told him that he used a .40 caliber gun, and that after
the shooting, the Defendant sold it to "some hoy in South Philly." Detective Bamberski noted
that, to the best of his knowledge, the murder weapon had not been recovered. (N.T. Volume 3,
03/07/2014, p. 18).
8
Witness William Childs (0) stated that the Copabanana Bar is located at 40th and Sansom Streets. (N.T. Volume
3, 03/07/2014, p. 47).
20
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
Detective Bamberski indicated that at the time of the interview they had no names. There
was some video surveillance footage; however, at that time, the persons on the video had not
been identified yet. (N.T. Volume 3, 03/07/2014, p. 19).
Rice also told them that the Defendant was driving a green Delta'88, with tinted
windows, and that Childs was the getaway driver. Rice said that he had known the Defendant
for some 18 years, and that he met the rest of the individuals involved in the shooting through the
Defendant. He has known Childs (0) for about five years, and Brown (Blizz) and Newsome
(Hawk), the Defendant's cousins, for about four to five years. (N.T. Volume 3, 03/07/2014, pp.
19-20).
Detective Bamberski stated that those were Rice's words in the "exact way" he answered
the questions. (N.T. Volume 3, 03/07/2014, p. 21).
Detective Bamberski further stated that Rice provided them with the real name of Hawk
(Kenny James) and identified photographs of the Defendant (Ant) and William Childs (0).
Further, Rice identified Blizz (Brown) and Hawk (Newsome) as the two males standing on the
comer outside of the store on the video: "Blizz has a cast on his hand. He told me that he broke
his hand fighting with somebody. Hawk is the one talking on the cell phone in the video." (N.T.
Volume 3, 03/07/2014, p. 21).
Rice also stated that he had shown photographs of Blizz and Hawk to Detective Peterman
from his Facebook page. Detective Bamberski confirmed that, despite Rice's assertions at trial
that he did not know those individuals and did not have a Facebook page, those were indeed his
words. Rice also confirmed that he talked to Blizz and Hawk after the shooting, and that both
said that they were "just there." 0 never talked to Rice about it. (N.T. Volume 3, 03/07/2014,
pp. 22-23).
21
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
Detective Bamberski noted that he gave Rice an opportunity to review his statement and
that Rice reviewed it in his presence. Rice then signed each page and affixed the date and time
(12:20pm) on the last page. Detective Bamberski testified that Rice signed a Statement of
Adoption Attestation in his presence. (N.T. Volume 3, 03/07/2014, pp. 23-24, 29).
After Rice signed the statement, Detective Bamberski affixed his signature and badge
number to the statement as well. Rice also identified photographs and signed them in Detective
Bamberski's presence. He identified certain individuals on the photographs as 0, Blizz/Darien
[sic] Brown ("Broken hand in video."), Ant, and Hawk/Kenny James "On video on cell phone
with hoodie."),9 and affixed his signature. (N.T. Volume 3, 03/07/2014, pp. 25-29).
Detective Bamberski confirmed that the information provided by Rice was given to the
assigned investigator and that other interviews were then conducted in connection with the case.
(N.T. Volume 3, 03/07/2014, pp. 29, 35).
William Childs, 0, testified that the Defendant was his friend. Childs stated that they
were from the same neighborhood, and that he was probably older than the Defendant by a
couple of years. He believed that they began socializing around 2007. They were "cool." Childs
confirmed that he knew the Defendant's cousin, Blizz (Darian Brown), and that he also knew
Hawk (Kenny James or James Newsome), and Rice (Twan). (N.T. Volume 3, 03/07/2014, pp.
41-45).
When asked about the shooting that occurred on November 29, 2009, he stated that he
had heard of the victim, Cracks, but that he did not really know him. He confirmed that
sometime before November 29, 2009, he had an occasion to be at a bar, Copabanana, at 401h and
9
Rice was shown a video of two individuals standing in a comer, peering around the comer occasionally, at times
looking down in the direction of the Wheels of Soul Club. (N.T. Volume 3, 03/07/2014, pp. 26-27).
22
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
Sansom Streets.10 He saw the Defendant and Cracks at the bar. He confirmed that Cracks was at
the bar, too. (N.T. Volume 3, 03/07/2014, pp. 47-48).
Childs testified that at let-out time, words were exchanged and shots were fired out on the
street. When asked where the shots were coming from, Childs answered that the people who
were with Cracks started firing at the Defendant. Childs stated that the Defendant did not tell
him whether or not he was upset about the shooting. The Defendant was "a little angry, but not
too upset" about it; there was no talk ofretribution. (N.T. Volume 3, 03/07/2014, pp. 50-54).
Childs stated that he was familiar with the vicinity of 61 st and Market Streets and that he
knew about an after-hours club there, the Wheels of Soul, though he personally had never been
there. Childs confirmed that he saw the Defendant early in the morning on November 29, 2009.
Childs was at the house of his girlfriend's family member. Because he did not have a vehicle, he
called the Defendant for a ride home, and the Defendant picked him up. Childs stated that he
was at the 5500 block of Addison Street when he called the Defendant and that he intended to go
to 61 st and Race Streets. He did not remember what kind of car the Defendant had back then.
(N.T. Volume 3, 03/07/2014, pp. 55-58).
After the Defendant picked him up, he first made a stop at a Chinese store at 61 st and
Market Streets. Childs stated that while he was sitting in the car, he heard about two gunshots.
The Defendant appeared about 5-10 minutes afterwards. He was calm when he got into the car.
He said, "Yo, you know, you hear them gunshots?" Childs drove the Defendant's car home. He
stated that he got right into the driver's seat upon hearing gunshots because he was scared. He
said he was going to pull off before the Defendant even got into the car. Childs noted that he did
not see a firearm on the Defendant. (N.T. Volume 3, 03/07/2014, pp. 59-64).
ro Witness Antoine Rice (Twan) stated that the Copabanana Bar is located at 401h and Spruce Streets, (N.T. Volume
1, 03/05/2014, p. 112; N.T. Volume 3, 03/07/2014, p. 16).
23
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
The Defendant did not say anything to Childs on the way back. After Childs found out
that the victim had been shot dead, he did not discuss it with the Defendant. (N.T. Volume 3,
03/07/2014, pp. 64-68).
Childs stated that he remembered giving a statement to homicide investigators about the
victim's death. He noted, however, that he "never reviewed anything that was said." When
asked if he remembered what he told investigators when he gave a statement about Crack's
death, he stated that it was "what I'm telling you now." (N.T. Volume 3, 03/07/2014, pp. 68-
71).
Childs stated that he did not recall being at Southwest Detectives that early in the
morning. However, he did recall being interviewed there because he was shot at when he was at
a house at Sih and Addison Streets, on March 16th, 2010. Childs was there with his three-year
old daughter; Rice was also with them. Upon hearing the shots, Childs ran into the house. No
one was injured. (N.T. Volume 3, 03/07/2014, pp. 76-79).
Childs stated that he told the investigators at Southwest Detectives about that shooting.
He confirmed that they typed down the statement and gave him a chance to review it. He also
confirmed that the signature at the bottom of the typed statement was his. However, Childs
stated that although he signed the statement, he did not recall reviewing it. N.T. Volume 3,
03/07/2014, p. 81).
Childs also remembered that he went down to the Homicide Division afterwards and
talked to two detectives there at about 2: 10 pm. Childs remembered being advised of his
constitutional rights before questioning. (N.T. Volume 3, 03/07/2014, pp. 82-86).
He indicated that he was truthful to the investigators and that he was not under the
influence of alcohol, drugs, or medications when he gave the statement. He also confirmed that
24
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
his biographical information on the statement was accurate. (N.T. Volume 3, 03/07/2014, pp.
87, 89).
Childs did not remember telling the Homicide investigators that on November 29, 2009
he was at 551h and Addison Streets, at his grandmother's place, and that he asked "this guy I
know as Peanut" if he could get a ride home. He also confirmed that it would be fair to say that
his memory was better in March 2010 than it was at the time of the Defendant's trial. (N.T.
Volume 3, 03/07/2014, pp. 91-93).
Childs confirmed that Peanut's real name was Anthony Washington, and that he
personally called the Defendant "Ant." He also confirmed that back then the Defendant lived in
the 5600 block of Addison Street. (N.T. Volume 3, 03/07/2014, pp. 94-95).
Childs stated that he did not remember identifying the Defendant's photograph at
Homicide, although he recognized the penmanship next to the photograph as his. Childs denied
telling the detective that the Defendant called him about giving him a ride home. He stated that
he told the detective that he himself called the Defendant and asked him for a ride. He agreed,
however, that he may have had a memory lapse about it. (N.T. Volume 3, 03/07/2014, pp. 97-
99).
Childs did not remember saying the following to the investigators:
[The Defendant] told me that he was outside and for me to come outside. I went outside
and got into his car. He had a Green Delta. I got into the passenger's seat of the car.
Peanut said that he had to go by the Wheels of Soul to check something out. That's when
I said just go on and take me home. He told me that he was waiting on a call, that he had
to see somebody. As we were driving, he got a call on his cell phone. It was this girl,
Rima, that we know calling him. I heard her say, quote, 'that he's here,' end quote. Then
Peanut answered her by saying, all right, I'll be right there. Then right after that he went
to 62nd Street between Market and Ludlow Streets. He told me that he had to go see
someone and that he would be right back. I told him that I was going to walk home
because my house wasn't that far away from there. And Peanut said, 'No, cuz, I'm going
to drop you off. Just wait.'
25
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
(N.T. Volume 3, 03/07/2014, pp. 100-101).
He also denied that the Defendant told him that Blizz and Hawk were up there. He stated
that he did not remember telling the following to the investigators:
Peanut got out of the car. He walked toward Market Street. I saw him turn down Market
going towards 61 st Street. That's where the Wheels of Soul is at. I was waiting there, like,
a good half hour. I got into the driver's seat while I was waiting for him to come back.
When Peanut got out of the car, he said to me that Blizz and Hawk were up there. They
were meeting him there.
(N.T. Volume 3, 03/07/2014, p. 103).
Childs also stated that he did not recall informing the investigators about what happened
while he was waiting for the Defendant in the car:
That's when I heard the gunshots. It was, like, five, six shots that I heard. Then,
like, five minutes later, Peanut came running around the comer from behind me, like,
from Market Street, and he jumped into the passenger seat. And I asked him, 'What
happened, what happened?' And he said, 'Just pull off, cuz. I'm about to drop you off at
home. Just go ahead and pull off.' I asked him, 'What's going on?' He was shook up,
nervous. He was looking around to see what was behind us like he was nervous. I know
that.
(N.T. Volume 3, 03/07/2014, pp. 105-106).
He also noted that he did not remember telling the investigators that the Defendant was
"real paranoid, scared" after he got into the car. He stated that he did not remember either seeing
the gun on the Defendant, or telling the investigators that when the Defendant got into the car, he
was holding a big black gun in his hand. He had no recollection of telling the investigators that
the gun the Defendant was holding appeared to be a .45 caliber gun, an automatic, and that he
put it into a pocket of a black hoodie that he was wearing. He indicated, however, that he did
have a memory loss. "Certain things I just don't remember. Like, I have a shorter memory. I
don't recall seeing no gun." (N.T. Volume 3, 03/07/2014, pp. 109-112).
Childs stated that he did not recall talking to the Defendant the following day; however,
in his statement, he said:
26
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
I asked him, 'What happened?' He told me that, 'I got him out of here.' I said, 'You got
who out of here?' He said, 'Crack, I got him out of here.' I asked him, 'Why didn't you let
me know what was happening?' And he said, 'It was just you asked me to take you
home. I wanted to take care of something and it was up your way.'
(N.T. Volume 3, 03/07/2014, p. 113).
Childs did not remember anyone ever telling him that the Defendant thought he was a
"sell out," "a little soft." He also had no recollection of the Defendant asking him, "Why are you
selling out?" (N.T. Volume 3, 03/07/2014, pp. 114, 118-19).
He confirmed that he said in his statement that Cracks was Omar Williams, "the one that
got killed." However, while in the statement he indicated that the Defendant said to him that
Cracks was "out of here" meanirig that the Defendant had killed Cracks, Childs stated at trial that
he did not remember giving that information to the investigators. (N.T. Volume 3, 03/07/2014,
p. 115-16).
Childs also did not remember giving a statement about Blizz and Hawk; however,. he
agreed that he could have given such a statement. He acknowledged that "separate and apart
from the statement," he did know Blizz and Hawk. Childs was not sure if, in fact, he gave the
investigators their real names Darian (Blizz), and Kenny (Hawk). (N.T. Volume 3, 03/07/2014,
pp. 119-20).
Childs confirmed that while he was at Homicide, detectives showed him a video. He
noted that he did not recall stating to the investigators that he recognized Blizz and Hawk on the
video:
Yes. I saw Blizz and Hawk. They were at the comer of Millick and Market Streets. I saw
that Blizz had a wrap on his hand. I remember that Blizz did have a wrap on his hand
back in late November, December, but I don't know ... why he had to wear the wrap. It
was, like, from a doctor's office."
(N.T. Volume 3, 03/07/2014, p. 121).
27
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
He also stated that he did not remember saying to the investigators that he "can't really
say if [he] saw [Blizz and Hawk] the day this happened." (N.T. Volume 3, 03/07/2014, pp. 122-
23).
He first stated that he did not remember being shown photographs of Hawk and Blizz and
identifying them both by their nicknames and real names. He stated that he also did not
remember pointing out the photographs of the Defendant and the decedent and being asked to
sign the photographs. However, moments later, Childs stated that he remembered identifying
"Hawk, Kenny," and "Blizz, Darian" on the photographs, making notations on the photographs
and signing them. He also identified the photographs of the victim and the Defendant. (N.T.
Volume 3, 03/07/2014, pp. 124, 130-32).
Childs had no recollection of telling the investigators about Rima, the female who called
the Defendant the night of the incident. He denied knowing a girl named Rima, or ever hearing
about her. (N.T. Volume 3, 03/07/2014, pp. 125-26).
Childs did not recall reading over the five-page statement. He confirmed that the
signature on each page was his; however, he stated that he was in such a rush to get out of there
that he "could have signed [his] life away." (N.T. Volume 3, 03/07/2014, pp. 126-28).
Childs also stated that he did not remember reviewing the Statement of Adoption
Attestation. He confirmed that the statement bore his signature and that he remembered signing
the statement, but he indicated that he "just was signing stuff to . . . get out of there and go
home." (N.T. Volume 3, 03/07/2014, p. 129).
He acknowledged that the signature on the Non-consent to Videotape Interview was his,
but stated that he did not remember being asked whether he wanted to go on videotape or not.
(N.T. Volume 3, 03/07/2014, p. 130).
28
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
Childs stated that when he left Homicide that day, he returned to his neighborhood. He
did not remember reaching out and calling Detective Peterman afterwards. (N.T. Volume 3,
03/07/2014, pp. 133-34).
He remembered being down at Homicide again and giving a statement to Detectives
McDermott (first name not stated) and Serrano (first name not stated) but stated that he did not
remember how long apart those visits were. 11 (N.T. Volume 3, 03/07/2014, pp. 135-36).
Childs stated that he did not remember being questioned that day as to whether he had
any other information or giving this answer:
The other day after leaving here I received a phone call on my cell phone from a private
number. It was a male voice, and the guy said, 'I heard you were telling.' I responded,
'Who's this and what you talking about?' The voice then said, 'If it's true, I'm on your top.'
I then hung up. I then called here . . . and then Detective Peterman called me back and
asked me to come in today.
(N.T. Volume 3, 03/07/2014, p. 138).
He stated that he did not remember receiving that phone call. When asked whether that
telephone call affected his ability to remember, Childs said that he did not even recall what the
caller had said to him and that he did not recognize the caller's voice. He did not receive other
threatening calls afterwards. (N.T. Volume 3, 03/07/2014, p. 139-42).
On cross-examination, Childs confirmed that he had never seen the Defendant with a
gun. He also stated that he signed some of the "stuff' because he "just wanted to get out of there.
I didn't read nothing that was written down." Childs confirmed that the only thing he
remembered with absolute certainty was that the Defendant was in the Chinese store when
Cracks was shot. (N.T. Volume 3, 03/07/2014, pp. 144-45; 148; 150-51).
Detective George Fetters testified that he became involved in the investigation of the
shooting death of Omar Williams which was assigned to Detective Howard Peterman. Detective
11
Childs gave another statement at Homicide on March 23, 2010.
29
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
Fetters stated that he initially came in contact with William Childs, 0, at the Homicide Division
at gth and Race. Prior to coming to the Homicide Division, Childs had given a statement at
Southwest Detectives. (N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014, pp. 5-6).
Detective Fetters confirmed that he was aware that Childs came in contact with
Southwest Detectives that day because there was a shooting incident in the area of 5600 Addison
Street when Childs was present with his young daughter. Childs was then brought to Homicide
as "the guy [they] want to talk to." (N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014, pp. 29, 34).
Detective Fetters indicated that he took a verbatim statement from Childs on March 17,
2010, regarding the victim's shooting death on November 29, 2009. Prior to taking the
statement, he advised Childs of his constitutional rights. Childs did not appear to be under the
influence of any drugs or alcohol when Detective Fetters talked to him. In addition to Detective
Fetters, a fellow detective, Robert Fetters, was also present during the interview. (N.T. Volume
4, 3/11/2014, pp. 7-11).
Detective Fetters confirmed that Childs indicated in his statement that the day of the
shooting, he was at his maternal grandmother's house at 55th and Addison Streets. Childs also
stated that earlier, he asked the Defendant for a ride home; the Defendant promised to give him a
call when he "[got] back around the way." Childs stated that the Defendant was from 5600 block
of Addison Street. He identified the Defendant on the photograph. (N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014,
pp. 11-12).
Detective Fetters noted that Childs stated that hours later - after 1 :00 a.rn. - the
Defendant called him and told him that he was outside. Childs then left the house and got into
the passenger seat of the Defendant's car, a green Delta. The Defendant told him that he had to
drive by the Wheels of Soul club to check something out. Childs indicated to Detective Fetters
30
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
that he protested because he wanted to go straight home; he said that he would just walk home
because it was not far away from where they were. The Defendant, however, insisted on making
a stop to see someone he had to see. Childs testified that as they were driving, the Defendant
received a phone call from a girl named Rima on his cell phone. Childs stated that he heard her
say: "He's here." Immediately thereafter, the Defendant went to 62nd Street between Market and
Ludlow Streets. The Defendant then got out of the car, and according to Childs, he went down
Market Street toward 61 st Street, where the Wheels of Soul is located. He asked Childs to wait
for him and promised to be right back and then drop Childs off. (N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014, pp.
13-14). (N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014, pp. 13-14).
Detective Fetters indicated that Childs explained that the Defendant told him that Blizz
and Hawk were up there waiting for him. Childs estimated that he was waiting for the Defendant
"like, a good half hour." After that half hour had passed, he heard five to six gunshots. He got
into the driver's seat while waiting for the Defendant to come back. Then, about five minutes
later, the Defendant came running around the comer, from Market Street, he jumped into the
passenger seat. He ignored Childs' question as to what had happened. Childs stated that the
Defendant was nervous and looked "shook up." (N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014, p.14).
According to Childs, the Defendant said, "Just go." Childs then pulled up to the comer
of Dewey Street, got off and walked down to his house. He did not hear from the Defendant
until the next day. Childs stated that when the Defendant got into the car, he was holding a gun
in his hand, a big black gun, an automatic, "like a .45 caliber or something." In the car, the
Defendant put the gun into a pocket of a hoodie he was wearing. (N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014,
p.15).
31
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
Detective Fetters testified that Childs also stated that on the following day he talked to
the Defendant and asked him to explain exactly what had happened. Childs noted that the
Defendant's response was that he "got him out of here" and that the Defendant, in fact, meant
"Crack." Childs also indicated that, according to the Defendant, the reason the Defendant had
not informed Childs of his true intentions earlier was simply that the business he needed "to take
care of' was on the way to Childs' home anyway. Childs also stated that he heard from others
later that the Defendant was referring to him as a "sell out." (N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014, p.16).
(N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014, p.16).
Detective Fetters stated that Childs also noted that the real name of the victim was Omar
Williams. Childs noted that he interpreted 'He's out of here' to mean that the Defendant killed
Williams. He stated that he heard that the decedent was from Callowhill, 61 st or 62°d Street, and
that the Defendant never told him why he had killed him. "When we were talking about what
happened, he, [the Defendant], said, 'Why, are you selling out on me, cuz?' I said to him, 'No,
but you could have told me what was going on,' stuff like that." (N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014,
pp.16~17).
Detective Fetters indicated that Childs explained that he knew who Blizz (Darian) and
Hawk (Kenny) were and that they hung out with the Defendant down on his block, at 56th and
Addison Streets. He stated that he knew them through the Defendant; he did not know their last
names. (N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014, p.17).
Detective Fetters stated that Childs told him that he recognized Blizz and Hawk on the
video. He stated that he saw them that day as they were standing at the comer of Millick and
Market Streets. He stated that Blizz had a white wrap, "like an Ace bandage," on his hand in late
November - December though Childs did not know why. Moments later, Childs said he could
32
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
not really say if he saw Blizz and Hawk that day. Detective Robert Fetters then showed him two
photographs and Childs identified Blizz (Darian) on the first photo, and Hawk (Kenny) on the
second photo, wrote the names he knew them by, then signed underneath and wrote the date,
3/17 /10. He also identified and signed and dated the photographs of the victim, Omar Williams
(Crack (sic)), and the Defendant (Peanut). (N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014, pp.18-19, 24-25).
Detective Fetters also stated that according to Childs, he did not know the full name of
Rima, the female who, he said, called the Defendant the night of the incident although he knew
where she lived and described how she looked. He also indicated that she "hangs with" the
Defendant and that he thought that Hawk was seeing her. (N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014, pp.19-20).
Detective Fetters stated that after the statement was completed, Childs had an opportunity
to review it and make any corrections if necessary. He did not make any corrections to the
statement and signed each page in Detective Fetters' presence. (N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014, pp.
20-21).
Detective Fetters also stated that Childs reviewed the Statement of Adoption Attestation
and adopted the verbatim statement, acknowledging by his signature "that the facts set forth in
this statement are true and correct to the best of [his] knowledge, information, and belief." The
Statement of Adoption Attestation was also signed by Detective Robert Fetters. (N.T. Volume 4,
3/11/2014, p. 22).
Detective Fetters also stated that he gave Childs an opportunity to go on video if he
wanted but that Childs declined by signing a non-consent statement, which Detective Robert
Fetters signed as a witness. (N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014, pp. 23-24).
Detective Fetters also stated that after Childs was interviewed, his statement was turned
over to Detective Peterman. The District Attorney's Office was also apprised of the interview.
33
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
Childs' statement was not disseminated to public and was not "put on some website." (N.T.
Volume 4, 3/11/2014, pp. 26, 31).
James Newsome (Hawk) testified that the Defendant was his blood cousin and that their
mothers were sisters. He confirmed that in the early morning hours of Sunday, November 29,
2009, he was in the vicinity of the 6100 block of Market Street. (N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014, p.
42).
Newsome stated that he and his cousin Darian Brown (Blizz) were in Darby when he got
a phone call from the Defendant. The mother of Brown's baby was also at the Darby apartment
when the Defendant called. (N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014, pp. 42-45.)
Newsome confirmed that at that time, the Defendant was having a problem with an
individual nicknamed Cracks. It was a "feud back and forth," a "[N]orth side/[S]outh side
thing." The Defendant asked Newsome and Brown to meet him down on Market Street, to be
his lookouts - to watch out for the police, and to make sure that he was safe. Newsome and
Brown drove there together, in Brown's car. (N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014, pp. 46-49, 52).
Newsome stated that he grew up in West Philadelphia. He was familiar with the
intersections around the area of 61 st and 62"d Streets, and he knew an after-hours club, the
Wheels of Soul, located in the area. Newsome and Brown met up with the Defendant on Dewey
Street. The Defendant was there with his friend 0. (N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014, pp. 50-52).
The Defendant told Newsome that he received a telephone tip that Cracks was at the
Wheels of Soul. He was waiting for Cracks to come out. "We had to go post up and wait on the
corner to see if any cops were coming .... " (N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014, pp. 53-54).
Newsome stated that they initially stood on the comer of Dewey Street. Because there
was too much traffic there, they went up to Arch Street and came back down toward 61 st and
34
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
Market Streets. Eventually, they set up at Millick Street, near a Puerto Rican store, "watching
for the cops." (N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014, p. 54).
At some point, Newsome got a phone call from the Defendant, who informed him that
Cracks was wearing an orange or red shirt. The Defendant asked Newsome to call him if they
spotted him first. After they spoke on the phone, Newsome and Brown went to the alleyway.
From that vantage point, they could see Cracks' vehicle. (N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014, pp. 56-58).
They later got a phone call that Cracks was coming up the street. Eventually, they were
able to see him. "And once he got in the car, that's when everything happens." When asked to
explain what it means, Newsome explained that it means that "Cracks was murdered." (N.T.
Volume 4, 3/11/2014, p.58).
Newsome stated that when the victim got into his car, the Defendant went out toward the
car with a gun in his hand. The victim started the engine, and the Defendant then "shot at the
car, shots were fired." Newsome noted that while he did not see how the Defendant was actually
pointing the gun, he saw him "sprinting out towards the car" with a gun in his hand. The
Defendant was shooting at the passenger side of the vehicle; Newsome heard about seven shots.
The car crashed. Newsome ran though the alleyway down 61st Street toward Arch Street. The
Defendant was running with him. (N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014, pp.59-62).
Newsome and Brown then returned to Upper Darby. The Defendant told them later that
he killed him and that "he was happy he did it." (N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014, pp.62-66).
Newsome stated that he did not know the victim personally, though he went to school
with his brother. When shown the video from that night, Newsome stated that he recognized
himself and Brown. On the video, Newsome was talking on the phone with the Defendant.
Newsome and Brown were looking down Market Street toward the after-hours place. Newsome
35
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
stated that he and Brown left the comer because they got a phone call from the Defendant
instructing them to do so. Newsome then went to the alleyway. (N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014, pp.
66-68, 70-71).
At trial, Newsome recognized the statement that he gave to the Homicide investigators on
December 24, 2013 when he was picked up and brought down to the Homicide Division. He
was questioned about what information he had in regard to the victim's shooting. He confirmed
that he gave a statement to Detective Peterman, who advised him of his constitutional rights and
asked him what he knew about the incident. Newsome noted, though, that he was not entirely
truthful the first time he met with the detective because he was protecting his cousin, the
Defendant. (N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014, pp. 71-73, 90-91).
Newsome confirmed that he was truthful when he said:
Me and my cousin, Darian Brown, was at our apartment in Darby .... My other cousin,
Ant, Anthony Washington, called Darian .... He had some trouble with some guy in the
Wheels of Soul who he had trouble with before. Me and Darian drove down to Dewey
Street and met with Ant near Millick Street. Millick Street is where the Puerto Rican
store with the camera is. That's where me and Darian set up. We was to look out for the
boy Cracks and let Ant know when he was coming. Ant was set up in the alley about four
houses up closer to 61st Street. We was between 60th and 61st. Ant had told us went we
met up that he was setting up on Cracks' car near the alley. We was to look for the cops
too and make sure he was cool.
(N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014, pp. 74-75).
He noted, however, that he actually lied when he said in his statement that he believed
there was going to be a fistfight between the Defendant and Cracks. He did so because he did
not want to put himself and the Defendant "in the situation." (N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014, p. 76).
At trial, Newsome admitted that he was aware that the Defendant was going to kill
Cracks. He also admitted that he lied that the Defendant talked to Brown on the phone when he
called them in Darby; in reality, he spoke with Newsome. Newsome said that he lied about it
36
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
earlier because he was trying to protect himself. Newsome also admitted that he lied when he
stated that he only heard the shots being fired but did not see the actual shooting of Cracks. In
fact, he did see the Defendant shoot Cracks. Newsome explained that he misled the detectives
about it in his initial statement because he was trying not to "involve" himself and was also
protecting his cousin. (N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014, pp. 76-78).
In addition, Newsome conceded that he stated, untruthfully, that he learned about Cracks'
killing from the Defendant only during a winter cookout at his cousin Venus' house:
[He) was there and he ... basically was glorifying what he did. He said he was in the
alley waiting for the boy Cracks to get in his car, waiting until Cracks started the car. Ant
ran up to the car and started shooting. He said the car pulled out and crashed across the
street. He said he ran the same way he came out of.
(N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014, p. 78).
The Defendant noted that when he eventually gave a statement to Homicide investigators
on March 4, 2014, just about one week before the trial, he told them that he actually witnessed
the shooting firsthand. (N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014, pp. 79, 81).
Newsome also confirmed that there were two open cases pending against him at that time
and that he was arrested just a couple of weeks before the Defendant's trial and was charged with
weapons and marijuana possession. Newsome was also arrested December of 2013 and was
charged with felony possession with the intent to distribute a controlled substance. (N.T.
Volume 4, 3/11/2014, pp. 83-84, 102).
Newsome stated that through his attorney, he reached an agreement with the District
Attorney that he would plead guilty to the charge of conspiracy to commit murder, with a
maximum period of incarceration of 20 to 40 years for that crime. He stated that he understood
that, as part of the agreement, he was obligated to testify truthfully at the Defendant's trial. (N.T.
Volume 4, 3/11/2014, pp. 80, 85-89, _106).
37
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
Miles Powell testified that he lives in West Philadelphia andthat he grew up in South
Philadelphia. He stated that sometime in December of 2009, he purchased a handgun from
"Rob," for five hundred dollars. (N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014, p. 111).
Powell testified that "Rob" called him and told him he had a firearm for sale. Rob
informed him it was a ".40 Beretta," an automatic. After Powell agreed to purchase the gun,
Rob instructed him to go to West Philly, off 57th Street, and meet him "on the little block."
Powell pulled up, and Rob came to the passenger side window, showed him the gun, and asked
him for the money. Powell then gave him the money, and Rob gave him the gun. Powell tried to
negotiate but Rob said he would not go down on the price because the gun was not his. Powell
testified that during the transaction, the Defendant was standing on the pavement and was
watching them. Powell did not recall if anyone else was present, other than the Defendant. After
purchasing the gun, he took it home. He could not recall the exact date of purchase. (N.T.
Volume 4, 3/11/2014, pp. 111-120).
Powell was asked to take a look at the gun used as an exhibit in the courtroom. He
recognized it as the gun he had purchased. (N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014, p. 119).
On January 11, 2010, Powell was stopped by the police. At that point he had the gun
approximately for two-three weeks at the most, "not even a month." When he was stopped in
South Philadelphia, he was in his cousin's car. The gun was in the trunk of the car, under a
bunch of clothes. (N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014, pp. 120-21).
Eventually, Powell was arrested and served eight months. Detectives contacted him
about the gun in the trunk of his car upon his release from prison. He was contacted in
December, a little less than a year after his arrest. (N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014, p. 121).
38
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
They brought him down to Homicide on December 7, 2010 and questioned him about
where exactly he got that gun. He was shown a photo array, and he identified the individuals
who were present when the gun was being sold. (N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014, p. 122).
He remembered identifying the Defendant as "the boy that was standing on the pavement
with Rob when (he] purchased the gun," and he confirmed that the signature on that photograph
was his. He also confirmed that when he was brought to Homicide the following day, he
identified the photograph of Rob as the person who had sold him the gun. He confirmed that the
signature on that photograph was his, too. (N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014, p. 123-24, 126).
Powell said that he was on probation for the firearm violation. He also said that he had
another open case, a felony drug case, and that his trial was scheduled for March 13, 2014. (N.T.
Volume 4, 3/11/2014, pp. 127-28).
He confirmed that the Commonwealth would not do anything on his drug case or his
open probation, but that if he were to be convicted and had to go before his sentencing judge or
for a probation violation hearing, the District Attorney would notify the court of the extent of his
cooperation in this case. Powell noted that he had no other agreement with the Commonwealth.
(N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014, p.29).
On cross-examination, Powell stated that he purchased the gun at nighttime and that the
transaction took about two minutes at the most. He also confirmed that he had never seen the
Defendant before that day and that on the day of the transaction he saw him for about two
minutes. He stated that the Defendant looked like the person who was standing on the pavement
during the transaction, but he conceded that it was nighttime and that he could not be sure about
it. He also confirmed that when he was arrested, the police showed him a photograph which the
police circled. (N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014, pp. 130-33, 135-36).
39
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
Robert Cropper testified that the Defendant is the godfather of his daughter and that he
and the Defendant had attended school together. He testified that he did not know Blizz and
Hawk but that he knew Childs (0), with whom he had also attended school. He did not think
that Childs and the Defendant were friends. (N.T. Volume 1, 03/12/2014, pp. 6-7).
Cropper testified that he was not involved in the sale of a firearm in December 2009, on
the 5700 block of Addison. Cropper explained that around that time he was "going through it"
with his wife, and that he was taking pills and drinking heavily. He also used to be a heavy drug
addict. As a result, his memory was affected. Cropper explained, however, that his drug
addiction did not affect his ability to remember where he ever lived. (N.T. Volume 1,
03/12/2014, pp. 6-11).
Cropper stated that he knew an individual nicknamed "Boo," Miles Powell. Powell lived
across the street from him in South Philly. He also stated that he knew Cuz. However, he did
not remember ever having a conversation with Cuz about selling a firearm or ever speaking or
meeting with Powell about purchasing a gun. (N.T. Volume 1, 03/12/2014, pp. 8-9).
Cropper remembered having a conversation with homicide investigators at the Homicide
Division about Boo and the sale of the gun. Cropper believed that Boo must have been locked
up with a gun and lied about buying it from him. He stated that he did not remember that Boo
ever called him to demand his money back. (N.T. Volume 1, 03/12/2014, pp. 11-12).
Cropper testified that when homicide detectives asked whether the Defendant had given
him a gun to sell, he told them that he had not. He said that they threatened to send him to jail if
he did not say that he got the gun from the Defendant to sell. (N.T. Volume 1, 03/12/2014, p.
13). He confirmed that they asked him if he knew anything about the sale of the Defendant's
40
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
gun, and that he denied it. He also confirmed that he gave a statement to the detectives. (N.T.
Volume 1, 03/12/2014, pp. 13, 15).
He insisted that the Defendant did not give him the gun. He confirmed that he and the
District Attorney met that morning and went over the statement which he had given earlier.
Cropper stated that that statement refreshed his memory about something that had happened in
the 5700 block of Addison Street. On that day, Boo met with Antoine Rice at that location. He
denied that the Defendant was present when Boo met with Antoine. (N.T. Volume l,
03/12/2014, pp. 16-17).
Cropper stated that he originally called Powell (Boo) to come up to the 5700 block of
Addison Street to give him a ride home, and explained that they live across the street from each
other in South Philadelphia. He maintained that the only reason he called Boo was to get a ride
home. Cropper then introduced him to "Twan" (Rice) and the two started talking. In the
meantime, Cropper himself was "across the street talking to somebody else or doing whatever
else (he] was doing over." (N.T. Volume 1, 03/12/2014, pp. 18-20).
Cropper indicated that because he was not there, he was not in a position to provide other
details about the Rice-Boo interaction:
A. I wasn't there. I just was there to get picked up. I was across the street.
Q. Did you get in the car?
A. No, I didn't even get in the car with him.
Q. If you called Boo from South Philly to come to pick you up and give you a ride, why
didn't you get in the car?
A. Because I went somewhere else.
Q. Where did you go?
A. I think I went to my mom's house on 59th Street.
(N.T. Volume 1, 03/12/2014, pp. 20-21).
41
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
He explained that he ended up not getting into Boa's car because he started walking to
his mom's at 59th Street. He said he was not sure who else was out there. (N.T. Volume I,
03/12/2014, p. 21).
Cropper noted that when he spoke with the detectives, he did tell them the truth about
what he knew. When shown a statement that he gave to the detectives on January 26, 2011, he
confirmed that his personal information on the statement was correct. However, he stated that he
did not recognize a copy of the statement that he gave to homicide investigators. He also stated
that he was not sure that the statement, read to him earlier the same day by the District Attorney,
contained true information. He said that it was long ago and he did not remember. (N.T.
Volume 1, 03/12/2014, pp. 21-25).
He also stated that he did not remember the two detectives who interviewed him that day
other than they were "two big black guys." He stated that he only "guessed" he remembered that
the interview took place on January 26, 2011. However, he stated that the answers on the
statement were not his because he "was always high and drinking around that time." He said that
when the detectives interviewed him, he was probably intoxicated with either pills or alcohol.
He confirmed that he remembered being high "all the time," and that when they interviewed him
he may have been high. (N.T. Volume 1, 03/12/2014, pp. 25-26).
Cropper was "pretty sure" that he did not remember stating the following to the
detectives:
Around December of '09 I was standing outside of my parole office at 58th and Market
Street when I ran into a guy named Cuz. Cuz asked me if I knew anybody with some
burners. I told him, no, because I wasn't into that.
(N.T. Volume 1, 03/12/2014, p.27).
Under further questioning, however, he agreed that the answer sounded "about right."
42
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
He also stated that it sounded "about right" that Cuz gave him his cell phone number and asked
him to call him if he heard anything. (N.T. Volume 1, 03/12/2014, pp. 29-31).
However, he denied stating to the detectives:
.. .I got a call from Twan telling me Ant was trying to shake some joints. Twan told me
to call my folks ASAP. I then called Cuz in South Philly and told him that my people
have a joint. Do you want to grab it? Cuz said all right and that he was on his way. I told
him to meet me at 57th and Addison.
(N.T. Volume 1, 03/12/2014, p. 31).
He said, "I guess that's when the detectives was, like, you got to involve Anthony
somehow or I'm going to jail, but he wasn't -- he didn't sell anything." (N.T. Volume 1,
03/12/2014, 2014, p. 31).
He did not "really remember" identifying Twan on a black-and-white photograph. He
then said that he remembered identifying the picture, and he recognized the signature as his.
However, he said that he did not know who wrote "Toine" above it, and he was not sure if the
penmanship looked familiar. (N.T. Volume 1, 03/12/2014, pp. 33-34).
Cropper stated that the following answer was read correctly by the DA:
Ijust left Ant's house on the block when Boo drove up and parked in the middle of the
5700 block of Addison Street. When Boo drove up, Ant and a couple of other guys
crossed the street to meet them, then Cuz and Boo got out of the car. I walked up and
shook both their hands. I walked away and stayed on the other side of the comer of 56th
and Addison Streets. Boo and Cuz started talking to Ant, then Twan walked over to a car
and took something off the passenger side wheel well and put it in his waist.
(N.T. Volume 1, 03/12/2014, p. 34).
However, at trial he denied that the Defendant was out there and insisted they were
talking to Twan. He also denied being asked this question, "Do you know what Twan took from
the wheel of the car?" as well as giving this answer, "I don't' know, but I believe it was a gun."
(N.T. Volume 1, 03/12/2014, p. 35).
43
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
Cropper stated that that day, Boo came down and was talking to Twan about something.
"That was it. I never seen a transaction, never seen anything. I never seen anything pass from one
person to the next. I don't know what was sold or if anything was sold or not." He stated that that
day, no money passed hands. He also stated that the Defendant (whom he identified in court)
was not there that day. (N.T. Volume l, 03/12/2014, p. 36).
Cropper remembered being shown Boo' s photograph, and he recognized his own
signature underneath. He confirmed that the person shown in the photograph was someone he
knew from South Philadelphia and that that same person showed up on Addison Street that day.
(N.T. Volume 1, 03/12/2014, p. 37).
He also confirmed that he identified the Defendant on a photograph shown to him. While
he recognized his own signature on the photograph, he said he did not know who wrote "Ant"
above it. Cropper denied that the Defendant was out there. (N.T. Volume 1, 03/12/2014, p. 38).
Cropper also stated that he did not remember talking to Boo about the gun at a later time:
"Question: How do you know that Ant sold a gun?
"Answer: Because Boo called me later and said that the gun jammed on him and that he
wanted his money back. I told Boo that I didn't have anything to do with that and to take
that shit to where he got it from."
(N.T. Volume 1, 03/12/2014, p. 41).
He remembered the question about the type of vehicle Boo was driving when Boo and
Cuz came up that particular day, but said that he did not remember giving the answer that Boo
was driving a "white Crown Vic." (N.T. Volume 1, 03/12/2014, pp. 43-44).
He stated that he remembered signing the bottom of each page of the statement and that
he recognized his signature. However, he indicated that he did not review his statement. When
asked, why he did not review the statement, he said, "For what? You don't need to sign shit. You
don't need to read it. ... You don't really read it. You just sign it." Cropper confirmed, however,
44
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
that when they were asking him questions, he tried to tell the detectives the truth. Cropper also
did not remember being read the Statement of Adoption Attestation. He did, however, recognize
his signature on the statement. (N.T. Volume 1, 03/12/2014, pp.44-47).
He stated that he was not currently under parole or probation, and that there were no open
cases against him. (N.T. Volume 1, 03/12/2014, p. 48).12
Copper denied being concerned for his safety if he came in and testified. He agreed that
he did not want to implicate someone who was the godfather of his child, a close friend. (N.T.
Volume 1, 03/12/2014, pp. 47, 57).
Detective Levi Morton testified that on January 26, 2011, he interviewed Cropper in the
Homicide Unit. Detective Morton stated that Detective William Holmes, now retired, was
present during that interview. Detective Morton stated that Cropper did not appear to be under
the influence of either drugs or alcohol during the interview.13 (N.T. Volume 1, 03/12/2014, pp.
60-62).
Detective Morton confirmed that he and Detective Holmes took a verbatim statement
from Cropper around 4:20 in the morning on January 26, 2011. Cropper did not appear tired and
he was not handcuffed. (N.T. Volume 1, 03/12/2014, pp. 60-62).
Cropper stated that in December 2009, he was standing outside his parole office at 5gth
and Market Streets when he ran into a guy nicknamed Cuz. Cuz asked Cropper if he knew
"anybody with some burners," meaning if anyone was selling guns. Cuz then gave him his
12
Cropper con finned that earlier, he pied guilty to a charge of aggravated assault and a weapons offense for which
he received a sentence of four to eight years. He was sentenced on 5/22/2003, and eventually was paroled. His
parole ended on 10/26/201 l. He confirmed that in 2009, he would have been walking his parole off. (N.T. Volume
13 03/12/2014, p. 50)
1
Detective Morton was not the actual assigned investigator, but he worked as a team with the assigned investigator.
(N.T. Volume 1, 03/12/2014, p. 62).
45
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
telephone number and asked him to give him a call if he heard anything. (N.T. Volume 1,
03/12/2014, pp. 65-66).
Cropper stated that thereafter he received a call from Twan (Rice), who told him that the
Defendant was trying to "shake some joints" - meaning trying to sell some guns. Cropper
identified Rice's photograph. (N.T. Volume 1, 03/12/2014, p. 66).
Cropper stated that he left the Defendant's house on the block "when Boo drove up and
parked in the middle of the 5700 block of Addison Street." When he drove up, the Defendant
and "a couple of other guys" crossed the street to meet him. Cuz and Boo got out of the car.
Cropper then walked up and shook both their hands, upon which he walked away and stayed on
the other side at the corner of 56th and Addison Streets. Boo and Cuz started talking to the
Defendant. Then Twan (Rice) "walked over to a car and took something off the passenger side
wheel well and put it in his waist." Detective Morton confirmed that these were Cropper's
words, verbatim. (N.T. Volume 1, 03/12/2014, pp. 67-68).
Cropper testified that he understood that Twan took a gun from the wheel well. When
Detective Morton showed Cropper a color photo of a black male, he recognized him as Boo
(Miles Powell). Detective Morton then showed Cropper another color photo of a black male.
Cropper identified the photo as that of the Defendant, "Ant," "my baby's godfather." (N.T.
Volume 1, 03/12/2014, p. 68).
Cropper indicated that he did not see the Defendant sell the gun to Cuz because he
(Cropper) walked away. He explained that he did not know what kind of gun the Defendant was
selling but that he knew that the Defendant indeed sold a gun because Boo called him later: Boo
said that the gun jammed on him and that he wanted his money back. Cropper stated that Boo
was driving a "white Crown Vic." (N.T. Volume 1, 03/12/2014, p. 68-69).
46
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
Detective Morton confirmed that he gave Cropper an opportunity to read the statement.
Upon reviewing the statement, Cropper signed each page. (N.T. Volume 1, 03/12/2014, p. 69-
70).
Detective Morton also stated that Cropper signed a Statement of Adoption Attestation
confirming that he adopted the verbatim statement to the best of his knowledge, information, and
belief. He signed the statement in Detective Morton's presence, and also put the date and the
time, 5:45 am, on the statement. (The statement was started at about 4:20 am.) Detective
Morton stated that he also recognized Copper's signature on some photographs; he also stated
that Cropper wrote "Taine" above Rice's photograph. Cropper also signed the Defendant's
photograph and wrote "Ant" above, in his own handwriting. Cropper also signed Boa's
photograph and put "Boo" above it. (N.T. Volume l, 03/12/2014, pp. 70-73).
Detective Morton stated that neither he nor Detective Holmes threatened Cropper with a
parole violation unless he told them that the Defendant was selling a gun. (N.T. Volume l,
03/12/2014, p. 73).
Detective Morton also confirmed that he interviewed Miles Powell. Powell had testified
the previous day that when Detective Morton showed him certain photographs, in particular the
Defendant's photograph, Detective Morton actually told him which to identify and that Detective
Morton circled the Defendant's photograph himself. Detective Morton denied that that was the
case and indicated that Powell picked out the photograph himself. He stated that he showed
Powell a photo array of eight color photographs, and that Powell recognized "the boy that was
standing on the pavement with Rob when I purchased the gun," circled that photograph, signed
and printed his name, and put the date and time. Detective Morton · also stated that no threats
were made to either Powell or Cropper. (N.T. Volume 1, 03/12/2014, pp. 73-77).
47
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
He also confirmed that Powell stated, in Detective Morton's presence, that he got the gun
from a "light-skinned guy from Addison between 56th and 57th Street on Addison." Powell
noted that Rob handled the transaction but .that the gun belonged to "the light-skinned boy that he
was with." (N.T. Volume 1, 03/12/2014, p. 74).
Detective Norma Serrano testified that William Childs was interviewed on March 23,
2010, at about 2: 15 in the afternoon, at the Homicide Unit. She was present during the entire
interview process when Childs was interviewed by Detective McDermott. She stated that
Childs' statement was a word-for-word, verbatim statement.14 (N.T. Volume 1, 03/12/2014, pp.
84-85).
In his statement, Childs stated, inter alia, that he identified a photo of James Newsome
("Hawk"), a friend. Childs said that on the night of the shooting, he was at the Wheels of Soul
on Market Street. He also identified and signed Hawk's photograph. Childs noted that Hawk
was the same individual who was on the video that was shown to him at his interview several
days earlier. (N.T. Volume 1, 03/12/2014, pp. 86-89).
Childs testified that after he gave the earlier statement, he received a phone call on his
cell phone from a private number. A male voice said, "I heard you were telling." The voice then
said that "if it's true, I'm on your top." Childs then hung up and called Homicide. Detective
Peterman called him back and asked him to come in. Childs stated that he did not recognize the
voice. He also said that no one else made any threats to him in reference to this investigation.
{N.T. Volume 1, 03/12/2014, pp. 87-88).
"Detective Serrano was not present during Childs' interview conducted six days earlier. (N.T., Volume 1,
03/12/2014, p. 83).
48
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
Detective Serrano noted that after giving the statement, Childs reviewed it before signing
and dating it. She confirmed that she recognized Childs' signature. (N.T. Volume 1,
03/12/2014, pp. 89-90).
Darryl Lipscomb testified that he was the victim's father. He stated that he last saw his
son alive on Thanksgiving in 2009, and that his son was healthy, and "in good shape" and "lively
spirits" at that time. (N.T. Volume 1, 03/12/2014, p. 133).
Mr. Lipscomb stated that a couple of days after that Thanksgiving, his other son gave him
a call at about 4 or 5 am, and told him that the victim had been shot. The victim's mother went
to the Office of the Medical Examiner to identify the victim's remains. Mr. Lipscomb stated that
at the time of his passing, the victim was 32 years old. (N.T. Volume 1, 03/12/2014, pp. 133-
34).
The Defendant presented one witness, Detective Howard Peterman, who testified that as
the lead detective, he is made aware of the "contents and generalities of the investigation." As a
result of his investigation, Detective Peterman became aware of a Sonia Sumiel who was an
eyewitness to this case. He stated that Sumiel was interviewed, and that her interview was
memorialized and turned over to the Commonwealth for discovery purposes. (N.T. Volume 1,
03/12/2014, pp. 136-37).
Expert Testimony
Testimony of Dr. Edwin Lieberman, an Expert in Forensic Pathology
Dr. Edwin Lieberman testified as an expert in the field of forensic pathology. (N.T.
Volume 2, 3/6/2014, p. 127).
49
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
Dr. Lieberman stated that he was involved in the post-mortem examination of the remains
of the victim Omar Williams, who was pronounced dead inside a vehicle at 6000 Market Street,
on November 29, 2009, at 5:09 in the morning, and that his remains were then transported to Dr.
Lieberman's office and identified by his mother and girlfriend. The decedent's body was
received with clothing, which included, inter alia, a bloody black shirt and a red pull-over style
sweater, both with two gunshot defects. (N.T. Volume 2, 3/6/2014, pp. 129-31).
The decedent had a total of three gunshot wounds. There was no evidence of close-range
fire. Neither the decedent's clothing nor the wounds on his body had any residue around them.
(N.T. Volume 2, 3/6/2014, pp. 132-40, 142-43).
The gunshot wound labeled A was a gunshot wound to the top and back of the decedent's
head. The gunshot went forward through the victim's skull into his brain. Gunshot wound B
was a penetrating gunshot wound to the right side of the jaw. The gunshot went forward and
upward into his brain. Gunshot wound C, a perforating gunshot wound, went through the
victim's lung on each side as well as through his heart. The victim bled to death internally from
that gunshot wound alone. Dr. Lieberman stated that each of the wounds, in and of itself, could
cause death rapidly, and that all three were fatal. (N.T. Volume 2, 3/6/2014, pp. 132-40, 142-
43).15
Dr. Lieberman stated that the projectile found at autopsy in the left frontal lobe of the
victim's head was in pieces and that in its deformed state it was consistent with having passed
through the skull. Dr. Lieberman also confirmed that prior to autopsy, he recovered from the
body bag in which the body was transported to his office a projectile which could have caused
the type of injuries observed on the victim. Dr. Lieberman confirmed that the series of
15
Toxicological screening conducted on the remains of the victim showed that in his bloodstream he had Ecstasy
and oxycodone. Nothing that was found in the toxicological screen contributed to the victim's death. (N.T. Volume
2, 3/6/2014, pp. 141-42).
50
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
projectiles were in substantially the same condition in the courtroom as they were when
recovered by him at autopsy. (N.T. Volume 2, 3/6/2014, pp. 136-37, 140, 146-47).
Dr. Lieberman concluded that the injuries he observed were consistent with the shots
being fired from the passenger's side of the car. Dr. Lieberman concluded within a reasonable
degree of medical certainty that the victim died as a result of the gunshot wounds to his head and
chest and that the manner of death was homicide. (N.T. Volume 2, 3/6/2014, pp.144-47).
Testimony of Detective James Dunlap, Expert in Forensic Retrieval of Digital Imaging
Video
Detective James Dunlap testified that he is assigned to the Philadelphia Police Homicide
Unit and that on November 29, 2009, he was involved in the investigation of the shooting death
of Omar Williams. He stated that he does not handle live investigations, but that he handles the
technical aspects, mainly video, as a member of Digital Imaging Video Response Team
("DIVRT"), a cooperative effort between the FBI and Philadelphia Police Department. (N.T.
Volume 4, 3/11/2014, pp. 145- 146).
Detective Dunlap stated that he had been trained by the Audio/Digital Forensic Unit of
the FBI and by the Law Enforcement Video Association. He stated that in the last five years, he
had recovered video from digital recorders of over 500 crime scenes. He was also one of the
instructors for the DIVRT program and helped teach other detectives the basics for recovering
video from digital recorders. Detective Dunlap testified that he has been qualified as an expert in
both state and federal courts and that he is certified as a forensic video technician. He stated that
he is trained to go out to crime scenes, secure video, and present it in court. (N.T. Volume 4,
3/11/2014, pp. 146-48).
51
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
This Court ruled that Detective Dunlap qualified as an expert in the field of forensic
retrieval of digital imaging. (N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014, p. 148).
Detective Dunlap testified that, as part of the investigation of the shooting death of the
decedent, he was directed to go to three locations in the vicinity of 61st and Market Streets to
recover video.16 He recovered the video the day after the shooting. Detective Dunlap did a time
check on all of the retrieved video using the U.S. Naval Observatory Master Clock, an atomic
clock with a very high degree of accuracy. (N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014, p. 149-50).
He started by going to JR1s Tattoo and Body Piercing, which had a very basic digital
video recorder. Detective Dunlap established that that video machine was 49 minutes fast, so he
made the relevant adjustment, and offloaded one-hour blocks surrounding the time frame of
the incident for the two exterior cameras. After going through that entire video, he identified
only about two minutes worth presenting at trial. The clip showed a view from the camera on the
exterior wall facing eastbound on Market Street. The video showed three males exiting the front
door to the Wheels of Soul and walking through that camera view. In fact, one of them - the
male in the front in red - was identified as the decedent in the case. (N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014,
pp. 150-52).
Detective Dunlap explained that the individuals on the video were walking into the
adjacent camera, which went westbound on Market Street. The video showed how they were
crossing the intersection of 61 st and Market Streets. The video then showed a car pull up toward
the red light. Another car pulled out of a parking spot, and "travel[ed] across Market crossing
16
The first location was JR's Tattoo and Body Piercing at 6110 Market Street. The second location was Market
Grocery with an address of 6033 Market Street, and the third location was Jess and Ron's place located at 6054
Market Street. Detective Dunlap stated that there was "an hour [of video] from IR's Tattoo Parlor, two hours from
Jess and Ron's Place, and three hours from Market Grocery," spanning a timeframe beginning before the incident
happened until a few minutes after its conclusion. (N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014, p.149, 171).
52
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
the curb and actually striking light." Detective Dunlap pointed to a figure on the video running
over to the car. Immediately afterwards, the car continued on and struck the wall across the
street. (N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014, pp. 152-53).
Detective Dunlap summarized his observations as follows:
The biggest thing that you can take from this is it took one minute and 50 seconds from
the time the males exit the Wheels of Soul until you see the car crashing into the wall
across the street ....
(N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014, p. 154).
Next, Detective Dunlap walked the jury through the video pulled from Jess and Ron's
Bar. On that video, it was possible to see the decedent's car striking the wall of the bar and
bouncing off. Detective Dunlap stated that the impact occurred at approximately 5:0lam. (N.T.
Volume 4, 3/11/2014, pp. 154-55).
The last place from which he pulled video was the Market Grocery located at the
northwest corner of Market and Millick Streets.17 Detective Dunlap stated that he pulled about
three hours of video from that location. (N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014, p. 155).
Upon going through the video, Detective Dunlap cut out one or two clips that he found
relevant. The clip on the video ran from 5:05 to 5:07:55 a.m. The video was one hour and eight
minutes fast;18the real time on the video was actually 3:57 am to 4:00 am, an hour and a minute
before the shooting. On the video, there were two males walking on Market Street toward
Millick Street. One male had some type of bandage on his hand. They walked through the
camera and continued down Millick Street into the next camera view, headed back up to Market
17
Market Grocery had a camera which covered the front of the business along with some of the sidewalk along
Market Street, and a camera at the back of the property which covered the sidewalk and street along the Millick
Street side. (N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014, p. 155).
18
It was just 8 minutes off, but by accounting for daylight saving time, it was one hour and eight minutes off. (N.T.
Volume 4, 3/11/2014, pp. 157-58).
53
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
Street and went back westbound on Market Street in the direction of 61 st Street where they
walked out of the camera view (N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014, pp. 157-58).
The next clip showed events which occurred approximately one hour later. This time, the
two males were coming up from Millick Street. The time on that clip roughly was 5:59:45
seconds, and the video played to 6:01 :55 seconds. (In real time, that was roughly 4:51 :45
seconds through 4:53:55 seconds.) The clip showed those males up until seven minutes before
the actual incident. They were shown on the comer, and the direction they were facing was that
of 61 st Street toward the Wheels of Soul. Detective Dunlap stated that the decedent's car was
actually parked just off the comer of Market Street. The men on the video were leaving the
corner and heading northbound on Millick Street toward Arch Street. They went out of sight
approximately seven minutes before the actual incident. (N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014, pp. 159-
60).
The next clip showed the same location right at the time frame of the incident. The clip
showed the two individuals who were with the victim earlier walking into the camera view
coming off Market Street. The men headed down Millick Street off Market Street, and a car's
headlights were turned on (as though from a remote control device). The two men headed
toward the car; then one of the males was seen running back toward Market Street, and the
second male was seen returned running back to the car. The end of the clip showed the car drive
off. Detective Dunlap then showed another video for the same time frame, from the front
camera. The video showed the two males again walking off Market Street onto Millick Street. It
was roughly 5:00 a.m., going on 5:01. (N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014, pp. 160-62).
Detective Dunlap played the clip again, showing that left-hand comer, and zooming in as
much as possible without losing clarity. He pulled a still from that exact moment in time. On
54
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
the still of a sidewalk going eastbound, there was a cutout (a vacant lot where a building had
been). That view depicted what appeared to be legs cutting across the pavement toward Market
Street and across a dark patch. (N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014, pp. 163-64).
Detective Dunlap stated that after seeing that video, he went on location, parked the car,
walked to the back alley behind the grocery store and ascertained that the alleyway goes straight
through. "You can get in there. You can go into either one of those cutouts where the properties
were and ... it's a "T11 alley. You can take it all the way up to Arch Street, and it was not gated. It
was unobstructed." Detective Dunlap confirmed that one could access that cutaway through the
alleyway right behind that grocery store - that there was open access. "You [could] walk straight
through, straight out." (N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014, pp. 164-71).
Detective Dunlap noted that in the months following the shooting, he went on location to
take photographs and to familiarize himself with some of the openings:
I walked through. There is an alley in the back that cuts through and 11Ts, 11 goes down to
Arch. Directly next to the property there is . . . a vacant lot where a property used to be
that's been knocked down. There is two properties and then there is another vacant lot
right there, which both connect to this alley in the back.
(N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014, p. 156).
Detective Dunlap stated that the alley was right in the rear of the Market Grocery and that
it ran from Millick Street to 61 st Street. (N.T. Volume 4, 3/11/2014, p. 156).
Testimony of Police Officer Kelly Walker, an Expert in Ballistics and Firearm
Identification
Police Officer Kelly Walker testified as an expert in ballistics and firearm identification.
Officer Walker confirmed that she had items submitted to her for microscopic examination in
regard to the shooting death of Omar Williams. Officer Walker stated that the reports submitted
55
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
in this case were prepared by Officer Krimsky (first name not stated), and that she was his co-
examiner. (N.T. Volume 1, 03/12/2014, pp. 94-95).
Officer Walker had a chance to identify microscopically the five fired cartridge casings
(FCCs) that were submitted by CSI Whitehouse on Property Receipt No. 9010311. They were
.40-caliber S & W, and their stated source was 6000 block of Market Street. Officer Walker
confirmed that based on her observations and the repetitive marks she was able to see under the
comparison microscope, her expert opinion was that all five of those .40-caliber FCCs were fired
from the same .40-caliber semiautomatic handgun. (N.T. Volume 1, 03/12/2014, pp. 105, 107).
Officer Walker also stated that another projectile was eventually removed from the
decedent's vehicle at the police garage ( Property Receipt No. 9010320). Officer Walker noted
that despite the bullet's being deformed, she was able to make certain microscopic observations
and establish that the damage to that bullet was consistent with its having hit a hard object such
as a vehicle. (N.T. Volume 1, 03/12/2014, p. 106).
She also confirmed that she had occasion to examine certain bullets that were recovered
from the victim, including,
on Property Receipt 3127583 submitted by Howard Peterman ... bullet B-2, which was a
.40 S & W /.10 mm copper alloy bullet specimen, [its] nose area was flattened, there were
foreign markings, there was a blood-like substance attached ....
(N.T. Volume 1, 03/12/2014, p. 108).
The District Attorney explained that, as per Dr. Lieberman's expert testimony, the stated
source of the projectile was the body bag in which Mr. Williams' body was transported. (N.T.
Volume 1, 03/12/2014, p. 108).
56
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
Officer Walker confirmed that there were altogether three bullets submitted from the
Medical Examiner's Office, and that a fragment of one of the bullets had broken off.19 (N.T.
Volume 1, 03/12/2014, p. 110).
Officer Walker was able to examine those bullets microscopically. Based on her
examination, she was able to conclude that the bullets from the bodybag and the two recovered
from the victim's head were fired from the same firearm. (N.T. Volume 1, 03/12/2014, pp. 111-
12).
Officer Walker stated that as a result of an Integrated Ballistics Identification System
(IBIS) hit that showed a possible match between the gun that was recovered and the casings and
bullets, it was recommended that a further examination on that gun be conducted.j'' Officer
Walker stated that she did not examine the gun personally, but that Officer Bottomer (first name
not stated) and Officer Stott (first name not stated) did. At a later point, when Officer Walker
examined the test shots fired from the .40-caliber firearm submitted to the Firearms Identification
Unit for examination in this case, she concluded that the five casings from the scene were fired
from that firearm. She also concluded that the projectiles recovered from the victim's vehicle,
his body bag and his right frontal lobe were all fired from that firearm. Officer Walker
confirmed that these findings were memorialized in the reports submitted in this case. (N.T.
Volume 1, 03/12/2014, pp. 115-16, 119).
Officer Walker stated that all of the opinions she offered to the jury were to a reasonable
degree of scientific certainty. (N.T. Volume 1, 03/12/2014, pp. 121).
19
In his expert testimony, Dr. Lieberman had testified earlier that it was from the right frontal lobe of the victim's
brain.
20
Officer Walker stated that the IBIS is a computer system that gives possible ballistics matches. If the IBIS
technician sees something that looks really close, further investigation would be warranted. (N.T. Volume I,
03/12/2014, p. 113).
57
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
Stipulation
It was stipulated by and between counsel that an inventory search of the white Crown
Victoria in which Miles Powell was an occupant on January 15, 2010, which search was
conducted pursuant to a search warrant, resulted in recovery of a semi-automatic .40-caliber
handgun which was located inside the trunk area of the car. The item was placed on Property
Receipt No. 2888844. The firearm was then submitted to the Firearms Identification Unit for
microscopic examination. (N.T. Volume l, 03/12/2014, p. 120).
Self-Authenticating Document
The Commonwealth also presented a self-authenticating document indicating that a
record check was made of the Defendant, and that it was revealed that the Defendant did not
have a valid license to carry firearms. The record check was conducted by the Pennsylvania
State Police, and the self-authenticating document was signed on April 18, 2011 by the
Commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police Custodian of Records, and the Director of
Firearms Division of the Pennsylvania State Police. Both individuals signed this document
under the Pennsylvania State Seal. (N.T. Volume 1, 03/12/2014, pp. 130-32).
SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
The Defendant contends that there is insufficient evidence to establish beyond reasonable
doubt his guilt of each of the crimes for which he stands convicted. He claims that the
Commonwealth did not prove that he was the perpetrator of the crimes, or a criminal conspirator,
or an accomplice. The Defendant further argues that the Commonwealth did not prove specific
58
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
intent to kill, malice, or premeditation. He insists, therefore, that he is entitled to an arrest of
judgment.
Upon review of the record, this court finds the Defendant's claims meritless. There was
sufficient evidence to convince the jury beyond reasonable doubt that the Defendant was guilty
of the crimes for which he stands convicted.
In passing upon a motion in arrest of judgment, the sufficiency of the evidence must be
evaluated upon the entire trial record; all evidence must be read in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth, which is entitled to all reasonable inferences arising therefrom; the effect of
such a motion is to admit all facts which the Commonwealth's evidence tends to prove.
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 428 Pa. Super. 494; 631 A.2d 639 (1993)(citing Commonwealth v.
Blevins, 453 Pa. 481, 483, 309 A.2d 421, 422 (1973)).
The standard for reviewing whether the conviction was based on sufficient evidence is
whether, viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth as verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence to enable the fact-finder to find
every element of the crime beyond reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Lewis, 2006 Pa. Super.
314, 911 A.2d 558, 563-64 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006). When reviewing the evidence adduced at trial,
the court may not weigh the evidence and substitute its judgment for that of the fact-finder.
Commonwealth v. Derr, 841 A.2d 558, 560 (Pa. Super. 2004). While guilt may never rest upon
conjecture or surmise, a conviction may stand on circumstantial evidence. Commonwealth v.
Roscioli, 454 Pa. 59, 62, 309 A.2d 396, 398 (1973).
First-degree Murder
59
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
The crime of murder of the first degree is defined as a criminal homicide when it is
committed with malice by an intentional killing. 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502(a). The killing is intentional
when it is willful, deliberate and premeditated. § 2502(d). To support a conviction for first-
degree murder, the Commonwealth must prove that the victim is deceased; that the Defendant
killed him; and that the Defendant acted with the specific intent to kill. See Commonwealth v.
Montalvo, 604 Pa. 386, 986 A.2d 84, 92 (2009); Commonwealth v. Pagan, 591 Pa. 69, 950 A.2d
270, 278-79 (2008); Commonwealth v. Koehler, 558 Pa. 334, 737 A.2d 225, 233-34 (1999). The
mens rea required is the specific intent to kill; it is the factor that distinguishes first-degree
murder from murder of a lesser grade. Commonwealth v. Taylor, 583 Pa. 170, 186, 876 A.2d
916, 926 (2005); Commonwealth v. Moore, 473 Pa. 169, 174, 373 A.2d 1101, 1104 (1977). The
jury may infer that the use of a deadly weapon on a vital part of the human body is sufficient to
establish the specific intent to kill. Commonwealth v. May, 584 Pa. 640, 647, 887 A.2d 750, 753
(2005); Commonwealth v. Rivera, 565 Pa. 289, 773 A.2d 131, 135 (2001); Commonwealth v.
Commander, 436 Pa. 532, 538-39, 260 A.2d 773, 777 (1970). The Commonwealth also has the
ability to prove the Defendant's intent through circumstantial evidence. Rivera, supra, at 135.
Here, the decedent's cause of death was ruled homicide. The evidence demonstrated that
the Defendant planned to kill the victim following an altercation at a bar a few days earlier. In
that altercation people with the victim were shooting at the Defendant. The killing of Omar
Williams was premeditated as evidenced by the Defendant's purposely finding out the location
of the victim; arriving at that location armed with a .40-caliber Beretta; recruiting his cousins as
lookouts; using his friend as a getaway driver; and waiting in an alleyway for the victim to come
out of the local after-hours club, the Wheels of Soul, get into his car and start the engine. The
Defendant then walked up to that car and fired his.40-caliber gun at vital parts of the victim's
60
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
body - his head and chest area. As established by expert testimony, any of the shots fired at the
victim would have killed him. The Defendant sold the gun soon afterwards to a "boy in South
Philly," and the ballistic evidence linked the gun recovered from the trunk of the buyer's car
(Powell's car) to the fired cartridge casings and bullets. Furthermore, the Defendant told
multiple individuals about murdering the decedent and bragged about it.
The killing of the decedent was willful, deliberate and premeditated. This court
concludes that the record at trial was more than sufficient for the jury to conclude, beyond
reasonable doubt, that the Defendant was guilty of murder of the first degree.
Conspiracy to Commit First-DegreeMurder
The Defendant alleges that the evidence was insufficient to support the guilty verdict on
the charge of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder. The Defendant's argument is meritless
and must fail.
Under the law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a
cnme. A conspiracy exists once two conditions have been met: (1) there must be an agreement
(verbal or unspoken) and (2) one of the members must then commit an overt act in furtherance of
the conspiracy. 18 Pa.C.S. § 903. In order to prove conspiracy, the jury must find that: 1) the
defendant intended to commit or aid in the commission of the criminal act; 2) the defendant
entered into an agreement with another to engage in the crime; and 3) the defendant or one or
more of the other co-conspirators committed an overt act in furtherance of the agreed upon
crime. Montalvo, 956 A.2d at 932 (citation omitted).
61
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
The Commonwealth may prove conspiracy by direct evidence or by circumstantial
evidence, including the relationship, conduct, or circumstances of the parties or overt acts on the
part of co-conspirators. Commonwealth v. Spotz, 552 Pa. 499, 716 A.2d 580, 592 (1998); see
also Commonwealth v. Murphy, 577 Pa. 275, 844 A.2d 1228, 1238 (2004) (quoting Spotz). In
the case of a conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, each member of the conspiracy can be
convicted of first-degree murder regardless of who inflicted the fatal wound. Montalvo, supra at
932.
Here, the Defendant conspired with any or all of these individuals, Darian Brown (Blizz),
James Newsome (Hawk), and William Childs (0), to engage in conduct for the planning and
commission of the crime of the decedent's murder. The overt act of the conspiracy to commit
first-degree murder consisted of keeping the victim's vehicle under watch, placing lookouts
(Brown and Newsome) for police or other persons who may be nearby, and firing multiple shots
at the victim.
The evidence established, beyond reasonable doubt, that the Defendant was guilty of
conspiracy to commit first-degree murder.
Possessing an Instrument of Crime
The Defendant further contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the guilty
verdict on the charge of possessing an instrument of crime. The Defendant's argument is
without merit.
Under the law, a person commits a misdemeanor of the first degree if he possesses any
instrument of crime with intent to employ it criminally. 18 Pa.C.S. § 907(a). An instrument of
crime includes any item the actor used for criminal purposes and had in his possession under
62
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
circumstances not manifestly appropriate for any lawful uses the item may have. Id. To convict
of this offense, the Commonwealth must prove that the Defendant "possessed [the] gun under
circumstances manifestly inappropriate for such lawful uses the gun may have had and with an
intent to employ it criminally." Commonwealth v. Jeter, 275 Pa. Super. 89, 94, 418 A.2d 625,628
(1980).
Here, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find beyond reasonable doubt that the
Defendant possessed an instrument of crime. Armed with a gun which he intended to use
criminally, the Defendant arrived at the location where he expected the decedent to be. The
Defendant then fired multiple shots at the decedent.
The ballistics analysis conclusively linked the gun to the fired cartridge casings collected
on the scene, the bullet removed from the doorframe of the decedent's car, and the ballistic
evidence submitted by the Medical Examiner's Office. Although the Defendant disposed of the
gun by selling it following the decedent's murder, the gun was eventually recovered. The
· attorneys stipulated to the circumstances under which the police recovered the .40-caliber Beretta
found in the trunk of the white Crown Victoria in which Miles Powell (the person who purchased
the Defendant's gun and who gave a statement that the Defendant was present during the
transaction) was an occupant on January 15, 2010, at the 1500 block of South 31st Street.
Furthermore, the record check conducted by Pennsylvania State Police established that the
Defendant did not have a valid license to carry firearms.
This court is firmly of the belief that, viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light
most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence to enable the
jury to find every element of possessing an instrument of crime beyond reasonable doubt.
63
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE
The Defendant's claim that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and was
based on speculation, conjecture, and surmise must also fail. The weight given to the evidence is
wholly the province of the finder of fact who is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence
and to determine the credibility of the witnesses. Commonwealth v. Hunzer, 868 A.2d 498, 506-
507 (Pa. Super. 2005). Any motion for a new trial grounded in the contention that the verdict is
contrary to the weight of the evidence concedes that there is sufficient evidence to sustain the
verdict. Commonwealth v. Rossetti, 863 A.2d 1185, 1191-1192 (Pa. Super. 2004), appeal denied,
583 Pa. 689, 878 A.2d 864 (2005). Accordingly, the trial court is under no obligation to view the
evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner. Id. Questions concerning inconsistent
testimony go to the credibility of witnesses. Commonwealth v. DeJesus, 580 Pa. 303, 311, 860
A.2d 102, 107 (2004). The court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the jury on issues of
credibility. Id. The decision whether to grant a new trial on this basis rests within the discretion
of the trial court. Commonwealth v. Hunter, 381 Pa. Super. 606, 617, 554 A.2d 550, 555 (1989).
A trial court should award a new trial on the ground that the verdict is against the weight of the
evidence only when the jury's verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one's sense of
justice, thereby making the award of a new trial imperative so that what is right and just may be
given another opportunity to prevail. Commonwealth v. Wall, 2008 Pa. Super. 151, 953 A.2d
581, 586 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008); Commonwealth v. Whitney, 511 Pa. 232, 239, 512 A.2d 1152,
1155-1156 (1986). "A new trial should not be granted because of a mere conflict in the
testimony or because the judge on the same facts would have arrived at a different conclusion."
Commonwealth v. Widmer, 560 Pa. 308, 320, 744 A.2d 745, 752 (2000).
64
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
This court finds that the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to uphold the
Defendant's convictions. The convictions in the present case were not against the greater weight
of the evidence.21
Under the law, evidence relating to the contents of any prior inconsistent statement may
be regarded as proof of the truth of anything each of these witnesses said in any earlier statement.
Pa.R.E. 613. For a prior inconsistent statement to be admitted as substantive evidence, its
declarant must be available for cross-examination. Pa.R.E. 803 .1.
[A] prior inconsistent statement may be offered not only to impeach a witness, but also as
substantive evidence if it meets additional requirements of reliability. . . . The test is a
two-part inquiry: 1) whether the statement is given under reliable circumstances; and 2)
whether the declarant is available for cross-examination.
Commonwealth v. Carmody, 2002 Pa. Super. 151, 799 A.2d 143, 148 (2002).
This court explained that the jury may regard evidence relating to the contents of any
prior inconsistent statement as proof of the truth of anything each of these witnesses said in any
earlier statement, as well as consider this evidence to help the jury assess the credibility and
weight of the testimony of each of these witnesses at trial. Although multiple witnesses in the
present case did not remember their earlier statements against the Defendant and made various
excuses for their memory lapses (for example, using opiates for years (Rice); being shot in the
face twice (Childs); engaging in excessive drinking and fighting with his wife (Cropper)), all of
those witnesses made prior statements to police. Those statements were damaging to the
Defendant, and the jury was free to believe them.
This court also instructed the jury regarding accomplice liability and accomplice
testimony. A person is an accomplice of another if he intends to promote or facilitate the
commission of the offense and his complicity is established by law. 18 Pa.C.S. § 306(c). Such
21
Defendant's reliance on Commonwealth v. Karkaria 533 Pa. 412, 625 A.2d 1167 (1993) is misplaced for the
reasons set forth in footnote 1. In this case, the verdict was consistent with the evidence.
65
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
person solicits another person to commit an offense, or aids or agrees or endeavors to assist such
other person in planning or committing the offense. Id.
This court warned the jury that when a Commonwealth witness is an accomplice, his
testimony must be assessed by special precautionary rules. Where an accomplice implicates the
defendant, it is the trial court's obligation to tell the jury that the accomplice is a corrupt and
polluted source and that his testimony should be viewed with great caution. Commonwealth v.
Rega, 593 Pa. 659, 689, 933 A.2d 997, 1014 (2007); Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 536 Pa. 244,
251, 639 A.2d 9, 13 (1994). This court explained that an accomplice may falsely try to place the
blame on someone else in hopes of obtaining favorable treatment but that, on the other hand, an
accomplice may be a perfectly truthful witness.
In the present case, witnesses Darian Brown (Blizz), William Childs (0), and James
Newsome (Hawk) had criminal involvement in the death of Omar Williams, and as such, they
were accomplices in the crime. Although accomplice testimony was supported by copious
independent evidence in the present case, even in the absence of such evidence the jury could
still have found the Defendant guilty solely on the basis of accomplice testimony if the jury was
satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accomplice had testified truthfully and that the
Defendant was guilty.
Here, the evidence presented at trial viewed in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth as verdict winner established that the Defendant had committed the crime of
murder of the first degree. The malice could have been inferred, inter alia, from the Defendant's
use of a deadly weapon on vital parts of the decedent's body-his head and chest. The evidence
also demonstrated that the Defendant engaged in extensive planning for the decedent's murder
and employed other people to act. This court has noted that "this could have almost been like an
66
Circulated 06/22/2015 12:22 PM
organized crime case" complete with lookouts and a getaway driver. N.T. Volume 1,
03/13/2014, p. 135. The Defendant then took a substantial step in furtherance of the conspiracy
by firing shots at the decedent thereby murdering him. In addition, the evidence demonstrated
that the Defendant was in possession of an instrument of crime and that he intended to employ it
criminally.
Upon review of the challenge to the weight of the evidence, this court concludes that the
verdict was consistent with the evidence. The jury was free to believe all, part or none of the
evidence, and it clearly found the evidence to be credible and reliable.
We conclude, therefore, that the jury verdict did not shock any sense of justice. No relief
is due.
CONCLUSION
In summary, this court has carefully reviewed the entire record and finds no harmful,
prejudicial, or reversible error and nothing to justify the granting of Defendant's request for
relief. For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.
BY THE COURT:
STEVEN R. GERO FF, J.
67