| Return to Fred Thomas' Homepage |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
EASTERN DISTRICT
VS.
FREDERICK THOMAS
APPELLANT
Appeal from the Judgement of the Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas
of Philadelphia County, Criminal Trial Division,
dated November 30, 1995, February Term
Information Nos. 0989-0992, 1994
Jay S Gottlieb, Esquire
Attorney For Appellant
215 S Broad Street
Ste 300
Philadelphia PA
215 735 3210
ORDER IN QUESTION
The Judgement of the Sentence
of The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
Criminal Trial Division, dated November 30, 1995, February Term Information
Nos. 0989-0992,
1994.
SCOPE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
The scope and standard of review is that the trial judge abused her discretion by allowing a verdict finding the appellant guilty of first degree murder which is not supported by the weight and sufficiency of the evidence, and an abuse of discretion bu the trial judge in failing to give a Pounds charge, in failing to give a voluntary manslaughter charge, and failing to instruct the jury that life means life without the possibility of parole.
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has jurisdiction in the matter of this appeal based on 42 Pa. C. S 9711 (h) (Appeals to Supreme Court in Criminal Case for Review of Death Sentence) and Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure 1941 (Appeals as of Right from Death Sentence.)
STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS INVOLVED
I. WAS THE JURY
VERDICT FINDING THE APPELLANT GUILTY OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER
SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE?
ANSWER: NO
II.
DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR WHEN IT FAILED TO STRIKE THE JURY PANEL BECAUSE
THE
PROSECUTION SELECTIVELY EXCLUDED MEMBERS OF AFRO-AMERICAN RACE FROM THE
JURY THROUGH THE USE OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES?
ANSWER: YES
III. DID THE TRIAL
JUDGE ABUSE HER DISCRETION BY FAILING TO GRANT A CONTINUANCE
REQUESTED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL IN RELATION TO THE LOCATION OF A MISSING WITNESS
MS MARIA FIELDING, WHO WOULD HAVE BEEN AN ESSENTIAL WITNESS TO THE DEFENSE
CASE, THEREBY PREJUDICING THE APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL
TRIAL?
ANSWER: YES
IV. DID THE TRIAL JUDGE
ABUSE HER DISCRETION BY ALLOWING A COMMONWEALTH WITNESS
MR HOWSER TO T ESTIFY ABOUT PRIOR CONTACT WITH THE DEFENDANT THEREBY
PREJUDICING THE DEFENDANTS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL?
ANSWER: YES
V. DID THE COURT ERR IN
REFUSING TO CHARGE THE ON DEFENDANTS REQUESTED POINT FOR
CHARGE,
WHEREIN IT WAS ASKED THAT THE JURY BE INSTRUCTED AS TO VOLUNTARY
MANSLAUGHTER AS A POSSIBLE DEGREE OF GUILT?
ANSWER: YES
VI. DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR BY REFUSING
TO GIVE A POUNDS CHARGE TO THE JURY BASED
UPON
APPELLANTS COUNSEL'S REQUEST IN HIS POINTS FOR CHARGE?
ANSWER: YES
VII. DID THE TRIAL COURT COMMIT REVERSIBLE
ERROR IN FAILING TO CHARGE THAT THIRD
DEGREE
MURDER REQUIRES AN INTENT TO CAUSE SERIOUS BODILY INJURY WHICH RESULTS
IN DEATH?
ANSWER: YES.
VIII. DID THE TRIAL COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION
BY FAILING TO CHARGE THE JURY, IN THE
PENALTY PHASE, THAT LIFE IMPRISONMENT MEANS LIFE IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT
POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE?
ANSWER: YES
IX. DID THE TRIAL JUDGE ERR BY
ALLOWING THE PROSECUTER TO MAKE PREJUDICIAL REMARKS
TO THE JURY DURING ITS OPENING, CLOSING, AND PENALTY PHASE STATEMENTS,
THEREBY
PREJUDICING THE DEFENDENTS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL?
ANSWER: YES
| Return to Fred Thomas' Homepage |
