Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on Dec 5, 2017 in Civil, Constitutional Provisions | 0 comments

Scarnati v. Wolf: Press Releases aren’t “Proclamations”

In Scarnati v. Wolf, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania rules 6-1 that a press release does not satisfy the Pennsylvania Constitution’s requirement of veto by proclamation under Article IV, Section 15.

In 2014, two appropriations bills passed the House and Senate, and were presented to the Governor for his signature. The House adjourned upon passing the bill, and the Governor vetoed the bill, returning it to the parliamentarian of the House. Unlike under the Federal Constitution, where the President’s veto back to the House would be the end of the matter if the House had adjourned, the Pennsylvania Constitution requires the Governor to issue a “proclamation” announcing his veto. The Governor, in this case, issued a press release announcing and explaining his veto. The House and Senate challenged the veto in court as invalid.

Two issues were presented in this appeal: first, what is an “adjournment” under this clause? Since the House adjourned, and the Senate did not, was the body adjourned such that the onus lay on the Governor to issue a proclamation, or on the House to re-consider the vetoed provisions of the two bills?

Majority by Wecht: The House was Adjourned, and Notice by Proclamation Was Required

The majority, speaking by Justice Wecht, held that the General Assembly did stand adjourned when the vetoed provisions of the bills were returned to the House parliamentarian, and that the Governor’s failure to publish a proclamation of his veto was fatal to the rejection of the bill. Discussing the overlap and distinctions of the Federal Government’s constitutionally prescribed procedure, the Court discussed the underlying goals of the “filing and proclamation” provisions of Article IV, Section 15. Paramount among these is public notice of the struggle between political branches, and the current status of a proposed bill.

The Court had little trouble dispensing with the “ambiguity” about when the legislature actually adjourned. There had been some discussion that the House had impermissibly adjourned without the Senate’s approval, but given that both houses had entered their adjournments upon their journals without any note of objection, the Court concluded that the presumption was in favor of constitutionality.

Given, then, that the House prevented the return of the Governor’s veto by its adjournment, the Court noted that the
The Court acknowledged that the parliamentarian is charged with receiving vetoes from the Governor during the regular session, but went on to reject the Governor’s argument that the parliamentarian was an “agent” of the House designated to accept “service” of vetoes. “We reject the Governor’s argument that the procedure utilized for the return of a bill during a legislative session somehow dictates the procedure to be used during an adjournment of the General Assembly.” The Court goes on to note that, even if the parliamentarian could be designated an agent for the House, there is no evidence that he was ever so designated.

Thus, the Court was constrained to consider whether the Governor appropriately followed the “filing and proclamation” protocol to finalize his veto. Although the Governor appropriately filed his objections with the Secretary of State, his issuance of a press release did not satisfy the requirements of the Constitution. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania rejected Governor Wolf’s argument that changing technology made the press release or even a tweet a sufficient form of notice to all citizens. “Formality is a critical tool in distinguishing political rhetoric and advocacy in its myriad forms from public notice of a constitutionally or legally significant declaration. Such formality cannot be abandoned.”

Historically, proclamations in Pennsylvania have followed a very precise format. While that format need not be followed precisely, at least some of the “indicia” or “hallmarks” of formality needed to be included. These included the Governor’s seal, and most importantly, the proclamation had to include explicit language demonstrating that the Governor was following the “filing and proclamation” procedure under the Constitution. Thus, his “informal communication to the public via mass media” was insufficient to sustain a veto.

Conclusion: Budget Finality…For the 2014 Budget

This case demonstrates the importance of having constitutional scholars on staff in political offices. It is fairly important that the Governor’s staff gave little or no thought to the procedure for properly vetoing a bill under the circumstances, and only after the fact did they give thought to how to spin the situation to show that they had complied with the rules. As the old saying goes, it’s best to measure twice so you have to cut only once.
The precise definition of a “proclamation” may now come under fire in future cases. The Court offers a general form that has sufficed in the past, and the Governor’s office would be wise to use that form in future cases.
It is unfortunate that a case like this takes three years to reach a final ruling at SCOPA. Meanwhile, provisions of the budget laws have been under fire and in limbo. Now, at least, there is finality on the budget from three years ago.

Read More

Posted by on Nov 23, 2017 in Attorney Discipline, Civil, Constitutional Provisions | 0 comments

In re Roca, In re Segal: No, we can’t just ignore the Constitution

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is, perhaps, the most powerful state Supreme Court within its own jurisdiction. Given comprehensive power over all attorney discipline matters by the state Constitution, our Supreme Court has struck down validly-passed statutes that transgress this judicial power. Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court also maintains “King’s Bench” authority to step into any case at any time and render a decision on any matter, great or small, within a case. Other jurisdictions limit their high courts by practice or rule.

These cases call on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to determine whether the Commonwealth’s Constitution limits SCOPA’s power to re-consider the punishments handed down by the Court of Judicial Discipline (CJD), and whether its common law King’s Bench power gives the Court power to intervene where the Constitution says it cannot.

Three judges were caught up in various schemes involving phone calls to one another and receiving phone calls from government officials asking for special favors in various cases, including entering continuances, re-opening cases closed by default, and granting or denying motions. The calls were recorded by the FBI pursuant to criminal investigations and then turned over to the CJD.

One judge resigned amidst the scandal; the remaining judges were removed from the bench and barred from holding future judicial office. Judge Segal’s offenses seem to be much more serious, involving an ongoing and persistent pattern of ex parte phone calls, favors and other judicial misconduct. Judge Roca’s conduct was limited to one instance in which she requested a favor from another judge for a family member. Roca argued that her conduct did not warrant the harsh penalties imposed on her, and that the Court should moderate her punishment in consideration of the punishment imposed for past crimes.

These cases were argued together, but ruled on separately. I will focus on In re Roca because its legal argument is much more interesting, and because the ruling in In re Segal follows a fortiore.

Majority by CJ Saylor: King’s Bench power does not override the Constitution

Pennsylvania’s Chief Justice, speaking for the 4-3 majority, makes the final ruling on this judicial misconduct. The Chief Justice rejects the notion that the Court’s common law King’s Bench power allows it to step into a proceeding for which the Commonwealth’s Constitution strictly limits review. The Court is limited to reviewing the record to ensure the facts found were not erroneous and that the punishment inflicted is not unlawful. It is not the place of the Court to trample the prerogative of the people or override the Constitution.

Relying on the plain language of Article V, § 18(c)(2), the Court declares that its standard of review is limited to overturning a judgment which is clearly contrary to law. The Court may not second-guess the punishment prescribed by the CJD, nor may it replace CJD’s judgment with its own. The Court may not ignore the Constitution in favor of its common law King’s Bench power.

In response to the claim that the CJD exceeded its authority in removing the Judge, the Supreme Court rules, “The CJD has wide discretion to fashion the appropriate penalty once it finds a predicate violation.” The Court opens the door to the idea that a punishment could be so beyond the pale of appropriateness, but does not make clear what that punishment would be.

Finally, the Court rejects Roca’s claim that she should not face such a severe punishment because it is unfair to her. The primary purpose of Judicial Discipline is to maintain the public’s confidence in the judiciary and to repair the public’s perceptions where misbehavior has brought the courts into disrepute. Thus, Roca’s claims of a personal right to more merciful consideration fall against the public concern.

Segal’s situation is far more serious, and Segal’s arguments are not as well developed. The Court’s majority affirmed the convictions of both judges.

Dissent by Donohue

Justice Donohue dissents, appalled at the “breathtakingly narrow definition of our standard of review,” which is “patently violative of the United States Constitution,” argues that the Court should engage a much broader inquiry into the conviction, and consider these appeals like any other. She urges that the Court should ensure the equal administration of justice for every citizen—including disgraced former judges.

Conclusion

The Pennsylvania Constitution made the CJD an independent body capable of exercising its discretion in determining what to do with judges who had violated the public trust. SCOPA’s power to review these decisions is accordingly limited. This is one of the few places where our Supreme Court’s power is limited.

Read More

Posted by on Oct 19, 2017 in Civil, Constitutional Provisions, Tax Law | 0 comments

Nextel v. Commonwealth: Uniformity Clause Bars Flat Cap for Taxes, but Statute is Severable

When paying corporate income tax in Pennsylvania, a corporation is permitted to carry over a net loss from the previous year to reduce the current tax year’s taxable income. However, the amount of deduction the corporation may receive—the amount of “net loss” it may carry over from the prior year—is capped at the greater of 12.5% of its current tax year income, or a flat cap of $3 million.

Nextel’s 2007 deduction from its 2006 net losses was capped at 12.5% of its 2007 income because this was greater than the $3 million flat fee cap. Nextel then brought a refund claim, and subsequently brought suit arguing that the $3 million cap that they did not use in tax year 2007 violated the Uniformity Clause in Pennsylvania Constitution, Article VIII, § 1, and—here’s where it gets tricky—that both caps on net loss deductions must be stricken because the statute was inseverable. Because the calculation they did not use was unconstitutional, the entire statute had to be stricken.

Majority by Todd: The flat cap on carryover funds violates the Uniformity Clause, but is severable from the rest of the statute

The Court agreed with the first, but not the second of Nextel’s arguments, and so Nextel wins, but really loses. Justice Todd’s majority opinion comprehensively considers the Uniformity Clause, discussing its background as a popularly-demanded addition to the “Reform Constitution” of 1874, a reaction to the abusive political power of railroads which allowed them to maneuver the General Assembly to exempt the railroads and their allies from taxes, and incrementally placing larger taxing burdens on the rest of the population to make up for the shortfall.

The Uniformity Clause, which comes into the modern 1968 Constitution unchanged, requires “substantial uniformity, which means as nearly uniform as practicable in view of the instrumentalities with which and subjects upon which tax laws operate.”

Todd wrote that Nextel’s “as-applied” argument against the flat cap is strong because of the numbers: 98.8% of all companies were exempt under the $3 million flat cap, while Nextel and a small handful of other corporate taxpayers were “required to shoulder the entire corporate net income tax burden” because of their greater income. In this respect, Nextel bears a larger burden of the corporate taxation burden in the Commonwealth than other companies. The Court found, therefore, that the tax statute “has created disparate tax obligations between these two classes of similarly situated taxpayers based solely on the value of the property involved.” This disparate treatment violates the Uniformity Clause, and the flat cap must be stricken.

 However, the Court did not agree that the statute was inseverable. Severability is the doctrine that determines when a statute may be left standing even without a portion of the statute stricken as unconstitutional. In other words, if a statute says you may not drive red, blue or green cars on the highway, and the Court finds that the prohibition of red cars is unconstitutional, must the whole statute be stricken, or are blue and green cars still prohibited?

Noting the general policy of Pennsylvania that all statutes are severable, codified by 1 Pa.C.S. § 1925, the Court explored two statutory exceptions to severability, which can both be phrased simply: where the legislature would not have passed the remaining statute in its remaining form, or where the statute simply doesn’t make sense without the stricken provision, the whole statute must fail.

Here, there was no reason to think the two legislative goals served by the corporate “net loss” taxation construct were completely defeated by striking one version of measure. Because the percentage cap was valid, and would likely have been passed by the legislature even if they had known the “flat cap” would be stricken down.

Concurrence by Baer: Nextel’s Challenge should be viewed as both Facial and As-Applied

 Justice Baer’s concurrence, joined by Justices Donohue and Wecht, argues that Nextel’s challenge should have been considered as both an “as-applied” challenge to the statute (which is how Nextel characterized the lawsuit), and a “facial” challenge to the validity of the statute (which Nextel disavowed). “[Nextel’s] challenge necessarily implicates the facial validity” of the statute, and the Court should have considered these implications in its majority opinion. “I write separately to clarify that, in my view, our holding declares the NLC unconstitutional on its face.”

Justice Baer appears to be correct that the majority opinion treats the statute as stricken as to all parties, not just Nextel.

Conclusion: Assorted Thoughts

A few scattered notes on this case.

First, the majority notes that Pennsylvania was the first state to include a uniform taxation requirement in its constitution. Thus, Pennsylvania’s continued grappling with this provision provides some guidance for other courts on this issue, and for other states considering adopting such a provision.

Second, although the reasons for the delay are not totally clear, this case is being adjudicated ten years after the tax year in question.

Third, the opinion doesn’t discuss Nextel’s standing, or the lack thereof. Nextel sued over a provision that didn’t apply to it in an attempt to strike down the provision that did apply. Another way of dealing with this case might have been to say that Nextel could not prove the whole statute was unconstitutional, and to decline to reach the merits of the issue of flat tax provisions. Alternatively, the Court may have considered that Nextel was burdened by the dichotomy, and that the lighter tax burden of other companies was harming Nextel directly. Regardless, this issue wasn’t discussed.

Finally, Nextel raises an interesting argument that the Court’s refusal to knock down the whole statute disincentivizes others to challenge tax statutes under the constitutional provision. This argument was rejected by the Court—obviously, they can’t just give you a better judgment than the law requires to “incentivize” lawsuits. But the argument offers a practical insight into a major hurdle to Uniformity Clause legislation—who wants to pay to bring these suits? Most individual taxpayers don’t stand to gain enough, and companies under the $3 million threshold certainly wouldn’t bring one. That leaves it to companies like Nextel or major casinos to take up the fight—and if they don’t think it benefits their bottom line, we may be stuck with unconstitutional taxes.

Read More

Posted by on Jul 20, 2017 in Constitutional Provisions, Criminal, Suppression | 0 comments

Com v. Shabezz: Automatic standing in Pennsylvania to challenge unconstitutional searches

Saleem Shabezz was observed by a policeman in a McDonald’s Parking Lot—a “hot zone,” known for drug deals by the police in Philadelphia (always a great place to find hot ‘zones). The officer saw Shabezz from his patrol car, 45 feet away, conducting a “hand-to-hand transaction with the driver.” This transaction was “a cupping and dropping motion to transfer small objects into the driver’s hand,” and then a subsequent exchange of “something,” which the officer assumed to be money—or at least, this is the remarkably detailed story told by the officer at the suppression hearing.

The incident reports about the exchange, on the other hand, are more generic. The reports simply said Shabezz opened the passenger door to the car, leaned inside, and conducted a brief conversation with the driver. Shabezz returned to the red Acura he had arrived in as a passenger, which attempted to exit the lot.

Whatever happened before this moment, what happened next is uncontested: the cops stopped the Acura, Shabezz the passenger fled and was apprehended, and a host of drug-dealing equipment and drugs were found in the car (including “heat-sealed” baggies, scales for weighing powders, etc).

The trial court found the dramatic enhancements of the story described in the first paragraph above to be a bit too convenient, too late, and suppressed the evidence gathered in the stop as unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. But the Commonwealth appealed this ruling, arguing that Shabezz did not have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in the areas searched (because it wasn’t his car), and thus, that he had no standing to contest the search.

Majority by Wecht: Shabezz has standing to challenge the search

Justice Wecht, writing for 5 members of the unanimous Court, outlines the development of “standing” in federal constitutional law. Wecht demonstrates how the Supreme Court of the United States quickly narrowed and then abandoned the concept of standing from the “automatic standing” rule of the 1960s, preferring to require Defendants to demonstrate a privacy interest in the area searched before being permitted to challenge a search under the law.

But Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court has always afforded more protection under the Pennsylvania Constitution than the Federal Supreme Court has under the Federal Constitution, and thus, Pennsylvania still recognizes automatic standing. But while standing allows the defendant to “get his or her foot in the courtroom door,” the Defendant must also demonstrate “that he had a privacy interest in the place invaded or thing seized that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.”

Wecht goes on to argue that the Defendant in this case need not demonstrate a personal privacy interest in this case, because, “This case is about an illegal seizure of a vehicle and its occupants. It is not a vehicle search case.” (emphasis in the original).

Quoting from closely-analogous Third Circuit caselaw, the Court concludes that a defendant in a car that was unconstitutionally stopped need not show another unconstitutional search to have the evidence gathered from the unconstitutional stop suppressed. He has standing, he may challenge the stop, and having done so, he succeeds on the merits. “We hold that the contested evidence, tainted by the initial illegality, must be suppressed, even absent a demonstrable expectation of privacy in the locations where the evidence was found.”

Concurrence by Mundy: There are no “per se” rules under the Constitution

Justice Mundy, joined by Justice Baer, reminds us that the Fourth Amendment creates few “per se” rules, and that “the Court’s decision should not be read to suggest all searches stemming from unconstitutional seizures are automatically fruit of the poisonous tree.” A case by case analysis will reveal attenuation in some cases, and reasonableness in the overall circumstances of others. “Although this case is relatively straightforward, other cases may arise where the chronology of events is more complex, which may alter the calculus.”

Conclusion: Are we still talking about the Fourth Amendment?

The question granted for appeal, the Court’s reliance on Third Circuit caselaw, and the ultimate holding all seem to be interpreting the Fourth Amendment. However, the Court’s bold reminder that the Pennsylvania Constitution affords greater protection than the Federal Constitution is thrown into the midst of everything, and it brings a curiosity about this case to the foreground. Pennsylvania’s view of standing on the Fourth Amendment, by definition, must comport with the Supreme Court of the United States’s interpretation. But this opinion seems to differ in important respects from Federal Supreme Court caselaw, not the least of which is on the point of automatic standing. Indeed, with SCOTUS’s recent expansion of the “attenuation” doctrine in Utah v. Strieff, it seems hard for SCOPA to claim this case does not represent attenuation.

Perhaps I’m wrong—but from where I sit, the Court may wish to develop its own caselaw around Pennsylvania’s constitutional provisions (in this case, Article I, § 8) to fortify against encroachment by the federal courts. Of course, SCOPA is largely bound by the arguments that the litigants bring them, and this case appears to have been certified for appeal only on Fourth Amendment grounds, not under Article I. Regardless, Pennsylvania is blessed to have a strong set of Article I rights, and I hope that SCOPA future considerations of these rights remains bold and expansive, as this opinion promises they are likely to be.

Read More

Posted by on May 3, 2017 in Attorney Discipline, Constitutional Provisions, Rule-Making Powers | 0 comments

Villani v. Seibert: Dragonetti Statute Does Not Violate Separation of Powers; But We’re Leaving the Door Open

 

Civil lawyers know—and may even fear—the threat of a Dragonetti action. The draconian name accurately depicts one of the few times in law that a lawyer can subsequently be called into court for his actions as an advocate. The Act is named for Joseph Dragonetti, a then-retired reporter for the Philadelphia Daily News, who unsuccessfully brought suit after he was frivolously named in a lawsuit against a bank which he had done some marketing for. Dragonetti was unable to recover because of the common law rule—dating back to the 13th century—that required a show of imprisonment or seizure before an abuse of process claim could prevail. Dragonetti persuaded the legislature to pass 42 Pa.C.S. § 8352(1), the Act now commonly called by his name, in 1980, and his name has been bandied about in acrimonious disputes between litigious attorneys ever since.

Villani v. Seibert arose out of a case in Chester County (home of America’s most valuable mushrooms) in which a Dragonetti action was pleaded. Seibert persuaded the trial court to grant preliminary objections on the basis that the Dragonetti statute impermissibly crosses into the exclusive purview of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania under Article 5, Section 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which grants the Court the exclusive right to regulate the conduct of attorneys and to lay down rules governing the profession.

In a 6-1 decision, (though with only five votes for the majority opinion), the Court ruled that the Dragonetti Act did not violate its prerogatives to regulate the practice of law in the Commonwealth.

Saylor for the Majority: Dragonetti Statute is Primarily Substantive, but Where Punitive to Attorneys, It’s a Problem

Describing the statute as having “a strong substantive, remedial thrust,” Chief Justice Saylor relied on the Court’s voluminous caselaw (which is well summarized in the prior case of Com v. Olivo, 127 A.3d 769 (2015)) establishing that Article V, § 10’s provisions are generally meant to give the Court exclusive power to create procedural rules, while the legislature retains its more traditional power to create substantive rights and remedies for the Commonwealth.

The Court relied on federal caselaw which characterizes tort statutes such as this one as “perform[ing] an important remedial role” to emphasize that the legislature’s actions in passing the Dragonetti statute were substantive, not procedural. Given this fact, the statute falls within the legislature’s prerogative, rather than the Court’s.

“There is no directed challenge to the punitive damages aspect here,” Saylor noted, taking care to leave wide the door to the argument that an attorney is not subject to punitive sanctions under the Dragonetti Act. Such punishment might run afoul of the Court’s prerogative to discipline attorneys, and leaving attorneys open to discipline in civil actions brought by private parties throughout the Commonwealth may be argued to trample the Court’s exclusive powers. But this question is left for another day, and a narrower case. For now, the Court was content to rule that there is no “generalized attorney immunity from the substantive principles of tort law embodied in the Dragonetti Act.

Conclusion: Separation of Powers

This case represents a creative argument and a further refinement on the Court’s separation of powers jurisprudence. Several times, now, the Court has resisted the urge to become overly-aggressive in defense of its prerogatives, and is working to strike a balance between the substantive rights of the legislature and the more restrained procedural rule-making power of the Court. As the Court notes in this opinion, the legislature is better situated for making broad policy, and leaving questions such as the civil remedies available to aggrieved defendants to the legislature.

One final note: somewhat unusually, the Attorney General declined to take up the defense of the statute as called for under Pa.R.C.P. No. 235. The Court notes this oddity with some surprise in footnote 2. It is unclear why the AG’s office declined to intervene here.

Read More

Posted by on Apr 29, 2017 in Constitutional Provisions, Criminal, Probation and Parole | 0 comments

Pittman v. Pa. Bd. of Probation and Parole: Board Abused its Discretion by Failing to Use Discretion

The Parole Violation statute requires the Board of Probation and Parole to use its discretion when considering whether to credit “time at liberty on parole” to a convicted parole violator’s re-sentencing for the underlying crime, the Supreme Court has ruled in Pittman v. Pa. Bd. of Probation and Parole. Furthermore, the Board must explain its decision in order to provide an opportunity for effective appellant review.

Kevin Pittman was sentenced in 2010 for a Possession With Intent to Distribute, and was paroled a year later. While on parole, Pittman committed another crime, which brought him before the Board. The Board checked a “No” box in answer to the question “Credit time spent at liberty on parole” on a form, and when pressed for an explanation by Pittman via letter, the Board argued he had “automatically forfeited credit for all of the time that you spent on parole” by committing a subsequent crime. Pittman appealed to the Commonwealth Court for review, which affirmed en banc.

Baer for the Majority: Parole Board has discretion to award credit for time at liberty on parole, and must at least consider doing so

 The Parole Violation statute provides that the Parole Board “may, in its discretion, award credit . . . for the time spent at liberty on parole.” This provision “clearly and unambiguously grants the Board discretion” to award credit for time at liberty on parole. Thus, the Board erred when it said that Pittman “automatically forfeited” his time spent on parole. “[T]he Board abused its discretion . . . by concluding that it had no discretion,” Justice Baer said for the majority, reversing the Commonwealth Court and remanding to the Board to consider whether, in its discretion, Pittman should be credited with time he spent at liberty on parole.

The Court went further, ruling that the Board must produce more than a “Yes” or “No” checkbox on a form when rendering a discretionary decision. The majority held that this requirement, though not found in the statute, rested on three separate bases. First, Article V, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution grants citizens the right to an appeal from all administrative agency hearings to courts of record. Failing to provide any written reasoning for the Board’s decision threatened to turn this Constitutional appellate right to a “mere empty formality.” Second, “inherent notions of due process” demand a written explanation when a convicted parole violator is facing re-sentencing. Third, the General Assembly’s intent in passing the Parole Violation statute is best served by requiring a written opinion regarding a decision involving the Board’s discretion.

Saylor: This Decision is In Keeping with our Past Decisions on Parole Board Appeals

 Noting that the Court has previously ruled that parole revocation determinations are subject to the right to appeal, Chief Justice Saylor expressed concern in a brief concurrence that the majority opinion “may be read to diverge from this statutory requirement concerning the timing and/or content of written explanations by the Board.” Saylor offered no further explanation on this point, and was joined by Justice Todd in this opinion.

Mundy: Discretion Must be Exercised by the Board, but No Explanation is Required in the Statute

Arguing that the majority “insert[ed] new language” into the statute, Justice Mundy, joined by Justice Wecht, concurred in the result because the Board abused its discretion, but noted that nothing in the statute requires a written opinion. Noting that the Board is free to defend its decision in the appellate courts—as it did here—she argued that a written decision is not required by the statute or by practice in order for a meaningful appeal to take place.

Conclusion: The Board lost this one, right?

 The Parole Board loses this appeal on paper, but one always wonders what the Appellant wins in a case like this. For his pains, he receives the right to go back before the Parole Board, wounded by a rebuke by the Commonwealth’s highest tribunal, and beg for discretionary mercy. This time, the Board will be free to check “No” again, and will be sure to write an opinion as to why. Perhaps the Board will grant some mercy, now aware that it has broader latitude than it previously thought, but it seems unlikely that Mr. Pittman ends up in a much better situation now than before.

Read More