A federal court has ordered Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner and two supervisors from his office to apologize to the family and survivor of vicious murders. The DA’s Office made representations to the trial court that the office had consulted with the family before conceding the death penalty for the murderer.
The Case and Decision
In the mid-1980s, Robert Wharton terrorized the Hart family for months. Wharton burglarized the Hart’s home repeatedly, left threatening messages, and ultimately killed Bradley and Ferne Hart. Wharton turned off the heat to the home and left seven-month-old Lisa Hart to freeze to death in the cold Pennsylvania winter. By no small miracle, Lisa survived the encounter. Wharton was later convicted of these crimes and sentenced to death. Wharton was retried for the murders in 1992 and again found guilty.
Ultimately, Wharton filed a federal habeas corpus petition to have his death sentence overturned. The court determined that the last major issue was whether Wharton had adjusted well to prison and if his adjustment would have changed the second jury’s opinion of guilt. Wharton’s defense insisted that he had adjusted well to prison life, but Wharton truly did not. Wharton had attempted to escape from prison multiple times, racked up numerous prison misconduct charges and was caught—twice—with makeshift handcuff keys.
After nearly 30 years of dutifully prosecuting the case and opposing Wharton’s numerous appeals, the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office suddenly decided to concede the death penalty issue. Specifically, the DA’s Office claimed they no longer sought the death penalty after “communication with the victims’ family” and their own internal review by their death penalty committee. The DA’s briefs and arguments lacked any mentions or evidence of his poor adjustment to prison.
The federal trial court was suspicious of the sudden concession and refused to accept it. After further hearings, the court reprimanded the DA’s Office. The Office had violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(3) because the Office made “representations to the Court that lacked evidentiary support and were not in any way formed after ‘an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances.’” As punishment for their conduct, DA Krasner was required to provide a written apology to the Hart family’s survivors and the DA’s Office was ordered to be more forthcoming in the future.
The DA’s Office (and two involved supervisors) appealed the District Court’s order finding they lacked candor in their representations to the court to protect their professional reputation. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the sanctions and findings of the District Court. In their decision, the Third Circuit noted:
“Though literally true, [the claim of communication with the victims’ family] was misleading. Our opinion remanding this case identified Lisa hart by name as the sole survivor of Wharton’s crimes. Any reasonable reader would expect, as Judge Goldberg did, that this phrasing meant Lisa had been contacted. Yet she was not. And any reasonable reader would expect, as Judge Goldberg did, that the Office had solicited the views of other family members. Yet the Office had not contacted anyone besides [the victims’] brother. Plus, when it reached him, it never told him clearly that it was planning to concede the death penalty.”
Discussion
This case is a prime example of an attempt to cover up poor performance with clever wording. The prosecutors were not technically being dishonest in their representations. But a reasonable person reading the court’s instructions and orders would interpret the claims in their contextual meaning, rather than literal.
Outside of the issue of candor by lawyers, there is also an issue of protecting victims of crime and their survivors. Pennsylvania has a Victim’s Bill of Rights codified in statute at Pa.C.S. §11.201, which is similar to the California Victim’s Bill of Rights. Both states require victims to be kept informed about the status of cases, including regarding hearings and proceedings that may result in the release of a defendant. While Wharton was seeking relief from his death sentence and not release from custody, the Hart family had a right to be notified of the true nature of the proceedings and be given a voice in the decision to concede.
This case serves as a reminder that prosecutors and other government agents should make reasonable efforts to involve victims in the justice process—both for moral reasons and from legal expectations set out in the Victim’s Bill of Rights.
Specifically for lawyers, the Third Circuit summed up their opinion well: “As officers of the court, lawyers must not mislead courts. So, before they state facts, they must investigate reasonably.”
For more than 30 years, the Lisa
Hart and her family have waited for justice to be carried out against Wharton,
only to have the DA’s Office mislead them about their plans to concede on the
death penalty. Hopefully, the Third Circuit’s decision and the apology by the
DA’s Office are steps towards finding that justice.
Images: AFP/Getty Images Composite: Mark Kelly, Wall Street Journal
