admin
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court stepped into the Philadelphia DA’s office and blew the whistle. In a King’s Bench opinion, the high court reversed a criminal-court decision that had granted a new trial to Lavar Brown after the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office conceded relief — and it slammed the DA’s conduct as unreliable, misleading, and dangerous to public safety. The ruling forces the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General to be notified and given the right to intervene when the DAO concedes in PCRA cases.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court reprimands Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner
The court’s opinion, written under King’s Bench authority, found that the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office repeatedly conceded relief in serious cases without doing the work required to prove those concessions were justified. The ruling says the DAO conceded relief in the Brown case even though the record did not support it, that the office misled the court, withheld material evidence, submitted a false stipulation, and failed to investigate. Those are not mere procedural mistakes — they are failures that put victims and communities at risk.
What the court found and why it matters
The opinion notes the DAO has conceded relief more than 100 times since 2018, largely in murder cases, and that the Conviction Integrity Unit still has over 1,000 cases to review. Because the problem looked systemic rather than isolated, the Supreme Court reversed the grant of a new trial in the Lavar Brown matter and ordered sweeping procedural changes: lower courts must notify the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General and allow it to intervene in any PCRA case where the DAO concedes relief. The goal is to add an independent check to make sure concessions are honest and complete.
New procedural guardrails: Office of Attorney General now part of the process
Attorney General Dave Sunday praised the court’s decision as a necessary step to protect victims and strengthen confidence in post-conviction review. Practically, OAG intervention will slow down any rush-to-concede strategy, require better disclosure and investigation, and give victims’ families a voice in cases where elected prosecutors are moving to undo convictions. That institutional check matters because it shifts power away from a single DA’s office and toward a statewide oversight role when public safety is at stake.
Political fallout and what voters should watch
This ruling will be used in the political fight over “criminal justice reform.” Defenders of the Philadelphia DA will say the DA is correcting past injustice. Critics will point to the court’s list of serious misconduct and to outside funding that helped elect the DA as proof this approach has gone off the rails. Whatever your view, the fix is simple: transparency, accountability, and respect for victims. Voters should demand that any conviction review be honest, thorough, and fair — not a shortcut that treats public safety like a political experiment. The Supreme Court just made that demand for them.
