investigation exception in Pennsylvania

2022Moreover, use of “the prosecution’s file [was] not a substitute for an independent investigation by defense counsel.” Id., at 374 ; see also Commonwealth v. Baxter, 640 A.2d 1271, 1274 (Pa. 1994) (stating that trial counsel’s reliance on the Commonwealth to provide her with discovery of information relevant to the - 12 - J-A25045-21 veracity of the Commonwealth’s witnesses proved ineffective as she failed to investigate a certain witness whose story turned out to be factually inaccurate).

2008See Commonwealth v. Mabie, 467 Pa. 464, 474 , 359 A.2d 369, 374 (1976) (explaining that reliance on "the prosecution's file is not a substitute for an independent investigation by defense counsel"); cf. Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 385 , 106 S.Ct. 2574, 2588 , 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986).

2010See Wiley v. Woods, 393 Pa. 341, 346-48 , 141 A.2d 844, 847-48 (1958) (holding that field investigation notes of a surveyor conducting a survey of real properties in response to an inquiry from a city council member following the denial of a rezoning petition were exempt from disclosure under the investigation exception of the Prior Law); Legal Capital, LLC v. Medical Professional Liability Catastrophe Loss Fund, 702 A.2d 869, 872-73 (Pa. Cmwlth.1997) (holding that records relating to the settlement of malpractice claims were not protected from disclosure under the investigation exception, and

2010See Wiley v. Woods, 393 Pa. 341, 346-48 , 141 A.2d 844, 847-48 (1958) (holding that field investigation notes of a surveyor conducting a survey of real properties in response to an inquiry from a city council member following the denial of a rezoning petition were exempt from disclosure under the investigation exception of the Prior Law); Legal Capital, LLC v. Medical Professional Liability Catastrophe Loss Fund, 702 A.2d 869, 872-73 (Pa. Cmwlth.1997) (holding that records relating to the settlement of malpractice claims were not protected from disclosure under the investigation exception, and

2023Commonwealth v. Barnes, 14 A.3d 128, 131 (Pa. Super. 2011).

2019Id. at 131 . -5- J.

1994It is this kind of service for which the Sixth Amendment makes provision.” Von Moltke v. Gillis, [ 332 U.S. 708, 725 , 68 S.Ct. 316, 324 , 92 L.Ed. 309 (1948).] Further, the prosecution’s file is not a substitute for an independent investigation by defense counsel.

1994It is this kind of service for which the Sixth Amendment makes provision.” Von Moltke v. Gillis, [ 332 U.S. 708, 725 , 68 S.Ct. 316, 324 , 92 L.Ed. 309 (1948).] Further, the prosecution’s file is not a substitute for an independent investigation by defense counsel.

2022Moreover, use of “the prosecution’s file [was] not a substitute for an independent investigation by defense counsel.” Id., at 374 ; see also Commonwealth v. Baxter, 640 A.2d 1271, 1274 (Pa. 1994) (stating that trial counsel’s reliance on the Commonwealth to provide her with discovery of information relevant to the - 12 - J-A25045-21 veracity of the Commonwealth’s witnesses proved ineffective as she failed to investigate a certain witness whose story turned out to be factually inaccurate).

2017See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Ellis, 549 A.2d 1323, 1332 (Pa. Super. 1988) (concluding that “the only restraints upon [defendant’s] freedom were those caused by his medical condition, as opposed to any action on the part of the police”); see also Commonwealth v. Fento, 526 A.2d 784, 788 (Pa. Super. 1987) (questioning defendant in an open area of hospital not custodial despite the confinement of suspect to a hospital bed).

2017In Whitehead, we applied the focus of the investigation analysis which was called into question by the Supreme Court’s decision in Beckwith v. United States, 425 U.S. 341, 347-348 (1976), and later rejected by this Court.

2017See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Ellis, 549 A.2d 1323, 1332 (Pa. Super. 1988) (concluding that “the only restraints upon [defendant’s] freedom were those caused by his medical condition, as opposed to any action on the part of the police”); see also Commonwealth v. Fento, 526 A.2d 784, 788 (Pa. Super. 1987) (questioning defendant in an open area of hospital not custodial despite the confinement of suspect to a hospital bed).

2015A motion for reconsideration is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, Ellenbogan v. PNC Bank, N.A., 731 A.2d 175 , 180 n.7 (Pa. Super. 1999), which may reconsider an earlier order pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5505 “only if the motion for reconsideration is filed within thirty days of the entry of the disputed order.” PNC Bank, N.A. v. Unknown Heirs, 929 A.2d 219, 226 (Pa. Super. 2007).

2010See Wiley v. Woods, 393 Pa. 341, 346-48 , 141 A.2d 844, 847-48 (1958) (holding that field investigation notes of a surveyor conducting a survey of real properties in response to an inquiry from a city council member following the denial of a rezoning petition were exempt from disclosure under the investigation exception of the Prior Law); Legal Capital, LLC v. Medical Professional Liability Catastrophe Loss Fund, 702 A.2d 869, 872-73 (Pa. Cmwlth.1997) (holding that records relating to the settlement of malpractice claims were not protected from disclosure under the investigation exception, and

2010See Wiley v. Woods, 393 Pa. 341, 346-48 , 141 A.2d 844, 847-48 (1958) (holding that field investigation notes of a surveyor conducting a survey of real properties in response to an inquiry from a city council member following the denial of a rezoning petition were exempt from disclosure under the investigation exception of the Prior Law); Legal Capital, LLC v. Medical Professional Liability Catastrophe Loss Fund, 702 A.2d 869, 872-73 (Pa. Cmwlth.1997) (holding that records relating to the settlement of malpractice claims were not protected from disclosure under the investigation exception, and

2010See Wiley v. Woods, 393 Pa. 341, 346-48 , 141 A.2d 844, 847-48 (1958) (holding that field investigation notes of a surveyor conducting a survey of real properties in response to an inquiry from a city council member following the denial of a rezoning petition were exempt from disclosure under the investigation exception of the Prior Law); Legal Capital, LLC v. Medical Professional Liability Catastrophe Loss Fund, 702 A.2d 869, 872-73 (Pa. Cmwlth.1997) (holding that records relating to the settlement of malpractice claims were not protected from disclosure under the investigation exception, and

2010See Wiley v. Woods, 393 Pa. 341, 346-48 , 141 A.2d 844, 847-48 (1958) (holding that field investigation notes of a surveyor conducting a survey of real properties in response to an inquiry from a city council member following the denial of a rezoning petition were exempt from disclosure under the investigation exception of the Prior Law); Legal Capital, LLC v. Medical Professional Liability Catastrophe Loss Fund, 702 A.2d 869, 872-73 (Pa. Cmwlth.1997) (holding that records relating to the settlement of malpractice claims were not protected from disclosure under the investigation exception, and

2010See Wiley v. Woods, 393 Pa. 341, 346-48 , 141 A.2d 844, 847-48 (1958) (holding that field investigation notes of a surveyor conducting a survey of real properties in response to an inquiry from a city council member following the denial of a rezoning petition were exempt from disclosure under the investigation exception of the Prior Law); Legal Capital, LLC v. Medical Professional Liability Catastrophe Loss Fund, 702 A.2d 869, 872-73 (Pa. Cmwlth.1997) (holding that records relating to the settlement of malpractice claims were not protected from disclosure under the investigation exception, and

2010See Wiley v. Woods, 393 Pa. 341, 346-48 , 141 A.2d 844, 847-48 (1958) (holding that field investigation notes of a surveyor conducting a survey of real properties in response to an inquiry from a city council member following the denial of a rezoning petition were exempt from disclosure under the investigation exception of the Prior Law); Legal Capital, LLC v. Medical Professional Liability Catastrophe Loss Fund, 702 A.2d 869, 872-73 (Pa. Cmwlth.1997) (holding that records relating to the settlement of malpractice claims were not protected from disclosure under the investigation exception, and

2010See Wiley v. Woods, 393 Pa. 341, 346-48 , 141 A.2d 844, 847-48 (1958) (holding that field investigation notes of a surveyor conducting a survey of real properties in response to an inquiry from a city council member following the denial of a rezoning petition were exempt from disclosure under the investigation exception of the Prior Law); Legal Capital, LLC v. Medical Professional Liability Catastrophe Loss Fund, 702 A.2d 869, 872-73 (Pa. Cmwlth.1997) (holding that records relating to the settlement of malpractice claims were not protected from disclosure under the investigation exception, and

2010See Wiley v. Woods, 393 Pa. 341, 346-48 , 141 A.2d 844, 847-48 (1958) (holding that field investigation notes of a surveyor conducting a survey of real properties in response to an inquiry from a city council member following the denial of a rezoning petition were exempt from disclosure under the investigation exception of the Prior Law); Legal Capital, LLC v. Medical Professional Liability Catastrophe Loss Fund, 702 A.2d 869, 872-73 (Pa. Cmwlth.1997) (holding that records relating to the settlement of malpractice claims were not protected from disclosure under the investigation exception, and

2005See Amro v. Office of Attorney General, 783 A.2d 897, 901 (Pa. Commw. 2001) (holding that the investigation exception to the Right to Know Act applies to completed and ongoing investigations undertaken by an agency in the performance of its official duties) (emphasis added); Commonwealth v. Mines, 680 A.2d 1227 (Pa. Commw. 1996) (citations omitted) (holding that information relating to police investigations and consisting of statements, affidavits, warrants, various reports, composite sketches, and photographs gathered during investigations are not within definition of “public records,” and, t

2003The Commonwealth has, in fact, conceded that exhumation and reautopsy would have no effect whatsoever on its efforts. 674 A.2d at 738 (emphasis added). 5 Thus, Dillon carefully left open the question we now decide in the negative: whether an autopsy report must be released, even where doing so would substantially hinder an ongoing criminal investigation. ¶ 13 Finally, we reject the Commonwealth’s argument that the autopsy report is shielded from disclosure under the investigation exception of Pennsylvania’s Right to Know Act, 65 P.S. §§ 66.1-66.4.

2003Id. at 424. 6 The court held that under the Act’s investigation exception, the district attorney and drug task force should be permitted to redact any phone numbers from the itemizations that concerned “ ‘the institution, progress or result of an investigation.’ ” Id. at 427.

2003Id. at 424. 6 The court held that under the Act’s investigation exception, the district attorney and drug task force should be permitted to redact any phone numbers from the itemizations that concerned “ ‘the institution, progress or result of an investigation.’ ” Id. at 427.

1985Unlike the general allegation of discrimination held insufficient by all members of this Court in U.S. Steel Corp., 1 supra, 458 Pa. at 563, 570 , 325 A.2d at 912, 916 , the complaint filed in this case adequately put the defendant on notice that the Commission intended to conduct an investigation and hearing regarding sex discrimination against its female employees.

1985Unlike the general allegation of discrimination held insufficient by all members of this Court in U.S. Steel Corp., 1 supra, 458 Pa. at 563, 570 , 325 A.2d at 912, 916 , the complaint filed in this case adequately put the defendant on notice that the Commission intended to conduct an investigation and hearing regarding sex discrimination against its female employees.