Welcome to the Lancaster County Courts Web Site Lambert in THE
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Welcome to the Lancaster County Courts Web Site Lambert IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA C R I M I N A L COMMONWEALTH OF : No. 0423 - 1992 PENNSYLVANIA : : v. : Post Conviction Relief Act : LISA MICHELLE LAMBERT : O P I N I O N BY: STENGEL, J., AUGUST 24, 1998 Click here to download self-extracting zipped file - Word Perfect format Click here to download self-extracting zipped file - MS Word format TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION II. BACKGROUND A. The Trial B. Post Verdict Motions C. State Court Appeals D. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the District Court III. THE POST CONVICTION RELIEF ACT PETITION A. Procedural History: Motions, Petitions, Conferences, Orders B. Legal Issues Pertaining to this Petition and Hearing 1. Eligibility for PCRA relief a. Constitutional violations: prosecutorial misconduct and Brady b. Ineffective assistance of counsel c. After-discovered evidence: subsequent availability of exculpatory evidence 2. "Finally litigated" and waiver under the PCRA 3. This court's role 4. To lead or not to lead: adverse and hostile witnesses IV. THE 1992 VERDICT: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW V. STATE COURT AND FEDERAL COURT A. A Comity of Errors B. What Does "Actual Innocence" Actually Mean? VI. PETITIONER'S STORY LINE: A CONTEXT VII. LISA MICHELLE LAMBERT'S CASE: ISSUES AND DISCUSSION A. Laurie Show's Dying Declaration B. The "29 Questions" C. The Abuse Issue 1. Relationship with Lawrence Yunkin 2. Allegation of gang rape 3. Cambridge Springs D. Tabitha Buck's Involvement 1. The scratch on Tabitha Buck's face 2. Tabitha Buck's animus 3. Scent of a co-defendant 4. Tabitha Buck's story E. Lawrence Yunkin's Involvement F. Kathleen Bayan's Observation 1. Credibility 2. Discovery obligation 3. Truth-determining process G. Hazel Show's Recollection of Mr. Yunkin's Car H. The Mihalakis Issue I. Credibility of Laura Thomas J. The Black Sweatpants K. The River Search Video L. Ms. Lambert's Statement M. Crime Scene Photographs 1. The telephone cord around the leg 2 . Footprints in the hallway and bedroom 3 . The white sweatshirt 4. "Missing" or "destroyed" photographs N. The Pearl Earring O. Robert Reed's Testimony P. Proposed Admissions from the Federal Record Q. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel of Roy D. Shirk, Esquire R. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel of Jules Epstein, Esquire S. Mr. Madenspacher's "Concession" T. Brady/Giglio Violations U. The Commonwealth v. Smith Issue VIII. CONCLUSION: THE QUE STION OF INNOCENCE ORDER ADDENDUM TO OPINION I. INTRODUCTION Lisa Michelle Lambert's petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"), 42 Pa. C.S.A. Section 9541 et seq. (1998 Supp.),(1) is now before this court. Ms. Lambert was convicted of first degree murder for the death of Laurie Show and sentenced to life in prison. The guilty verdict was entered on July 20, 1992, after a non-jury trial. Ms. Lambert's petition contends that her conviction and sentence are wrongful, illegal and unconstitutional on the basis of after-discovered evidence. She believes that this after-discovered evidence proves her innocence and credibility, and establishes a fundamental miscarriage of justice. She also argues that intentional acts of prosecutorial misconduct, deliberate falsification of evidence, witness tampering, violations of discovery obligations, presentation of perjured testimony and ineffective assistance of both trial and appellate counsel formed the basis for her conviction. Ms. Lambert contends that she cannot be retried because the prosecution intended to deny her a fair trial. The 257 claims stated in the amended petition present various facets of certain major issues. In this opinion, we address these issues. This court has had an opportunity to consider Ms. Lambert's claims in light of the testimony at her 1992 trial, the testimony at her eight week 1998 PCRA hearing and the legal issues and arguments presented by her counsel and by the Commonwealth. On the basis of this fully developed record, we are in a position to make factual findings, credibility rulings and legal decisions in the interest of a full resolution of all claims raised by Ms. Lambert. We find that Hazel Show's testimony regarding her daughter's dying declaration was credible in 1992 and remains credible today. We find that the expert analysis so ably presented by both sides of this case does not constitute such "after- discovered evidence" as would cause this court to make any change in the credibility determination which formed an important basis for the 1992 verdict. We find that the so-called "29 questions" did not and could not raise a reasonable doubt as to petitioner's guilt and does not form the basis for any contention that the Commonwealth presented perjured testimony. While sympathetic to the evidence of past abuse presented by Ms. Lambert, we do not find, under the law, that her diagnosis as a "battered person" has any legal impact on the issues before us. We find petitioner's evidence regarding the involvement of Tabitha Buck and Lawrence Yunkin to be fraught with concerns over Ms. Lambert's credibility. Should we resolve many of those credibility questions in petitioner's favor, we still do not believe the testimony about the involvement of others is exculpatory of Ms. Lambert and it certainly does not establish her innocence. We are concerned regarding the discovery issues arising out of the information made available to the police in 1992 by Kathleen Bayan and by Hazel Show. After careful analysis of the legal obligations of the Commonwealth and the credibility of all the witnesses involved in these two issues, we do not believe the issues provide a basis for relief under the PCRA. In 1992 we resolved the issue regarding the contact by First Assistant District Attorney John A. Kenneff with defense expert witness Isidore Mihalakis, M.D., in advance of trial. Nothing about the hearing in 1998 changes our view of that issue. We find the issues regarding Laura Thomas's credibility, Lawrence Yunkin's black sweatpants, the video of the river search, the statement taken of Ms. Lambert, the photographs of the crime scene and the pearl earring to have more sensational appeal than legal merit. The issues have generated more heat than light in this case. We have analyzed the many allegations of constitutional or discovery violations and find that the Commonwealth's compliance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure regarding discovery and the requirements of Brady v. Maryland(2) has been well established by the facts and the law. Finally, we find no basis in law or in fact to hold either trial counsel or appellate counsel ineffective. On the basis of our consideration of these issues, our study of the law and our careful consideration of the now fully developed record, we find that Ms. Lambert has not established a basis for relief under the Post Conviction Relief Act. Our findings on the individual issues raised by the petition will be set forth in the sections to follow. II. BACKGROUND Lisa Michelle Lambert, in addition to another woman, Tabitha Faith Buck, was charged with criminal homicide for the death of Laurie Show. The homicide took place on December 20, 1991, in the condominium occupied by Ms. Show and her mother, Hazel Show. Ms. Lambert was 19 years old at the time; Ms. Show was 15 years old. A third person, Lawrence Stewart Yunkin, was charged with hindering apprehension. Ms. Lambert was Mr. Yunkin's girlfriend; she was, at the time, pregnant to him. A. The Trial After waiving her right to a trial by jury, Ms. Lambert proceeded to trial and was found guilty of first degree murder and criminal conspiracy to commit murder on July 20, 1992. The Commonwealth elected to seek the death penalty in the Lambert case. Following a hearing on the penalty phase, the court declined to impose the death penalty and sentenced Ms. Lambert to a term of life in prison without the possibility of parole. B. Post Verdict Motions Ms. Lambert's post verdict motions were filed on July 28, 1992. In essence, Ms. Lambert argued that her conviction was against the weight of the evidence. She raised a dozen claims of error essentially challenging evidentiary or procedural rulings,(3) but her primary thrust was that there was insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that she was the killer of Laurie Show. The court denied Ms. Lambert's post verdict motions in an opinion dated July 19, 1994.(4) No appeal was taken from that order. Ms. Lambert's family then hired a new attorney who filed a request with this court for a new trial on the basis of after-discovered evidence and the alleged ineffectiveness of her court-appointed attorney. At the joint request of the assistant district attorney and her privately-retained attorney, an evidentiary hearing was conducted over a two-day period in November 1994.(5) Counsel indicated a desire to take all issues up on appeal at that time.(6) The post verdict evidentiary hearing addressed the issues of ineffective assistance of counsel and after-discovered evidence. Ms. Lambert attacked only the assistance of counsel rendered to her by Roy D. Shirk, Esquire.(7) Specifically, she claimed he was ineffective for the following reasons: (1) failing to call character witnesses in her defense; (2) failing to introduce evidence of abuse by Mr. Yunkin; (3) calling a witness to contradict her testimony; (4) failing to seek suppression of statements she made to the police; (5) failing to present evidence of bad reputation for the veracity of witness Laura Thomas; (6) failing to seek a new trial based upon new evidence of Mr.