October 14, 1999

Re: Michael Brown perjury case (No. 228 of 1998)

Dear Commissioners,

This letter concerns the Kathy Wilson murder case, which I have been reviewing for well over two years. One of the more disturbing aspects of this case is the apparent efforts of law enforcement and court officials to cover up wrongdoing by the Commonwealth. Several of the matters that I have become aware of over the past year and a half appear to relate to your office. They also pertain to the present case which involves the charges of perjury for which Michael Brown is currently incarcerated.

There are in fact several instances of what can only be seen as a concerted effort by Commonwealth officials to suppress the true facts in these cases, and which involves the improper handling of the records of these cases. It is my understanding that your office exercises supervisory authority over the maintenance and handling of these documents under 16 P.S. § 405. (Offices, Records and Papers to be Kept at County Seat).

The first, and perhaps the most significant of these improprieties is the fact, as indicated by the record, that the transcripts to Mr. Brown’s evidentiary hearing of September 4, 1991, were never entered into the record until February 11, 1998. The record gives no indication of where these records have been, how they got there, or why they were not docketed for seven and a half years. You may note that these transcripts were certified by Court Reporter Charles Rapp, but never approved nor directed to be filed by Judge Wolfe.

I believe your inquiry into this matter will indicate that these transcripts were ultimately produced only as a result of my determined efforts to obtain them, including a formal request to the Clerk of Courts, several letters to Judge Paul Millin, and a letter to Chief Justice Flaherty of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The fact of the matter is that it took me eight months to obtain these documents, a fact that I find quite disturbing in itself. A similar instance of impropriety concerns the removal of various matters of record through a “Receipt for Property” dated February 13, 1992, and signed by Court Reporter Rapp, and Charles Becker of the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s office. The most critical of these items that I have been able to identify is the taped statement of Michael Brown of October 6, 1989. Also the item # 9; a “BOX CONTAINING COPIES OF DOCS/EXHIBITS”. It is my understanding that the court reporter has no authority to release such evidence to anyone, and that said release of these (original) documents/exhibits is unlawful.

A third matter concerns the Petition by District Attorney Joseph A. Massa of January 20, 1995, and the subsequent Orders of the Court of January 23, and 24 of 1995, by Judge Paul H. Millin, ordering that “all physical evidence now in the control of the Warren County Prothonotary regarding the above-captioned case be released to Trooper Michael Povlick of the Pennsylvania State Police.”

With regard to this particular matter, I would first point out that at the time he filed this petition, District Attorney Massa (as well as Trooper John Herzog) were named as co-conspirators in Mr. Buckley’s private criminal complaint against Michael Brown. Also, Trooper Povlick (who officially received this physical evidence) was intimately involved in the handling of this case along with Trooper Herzog. Furthermore, there appears to be no genuinely valid basis of record for this transfer of any of this material

At this time, the matters concerning the absence of the transcripts of the evidentiary hearing of September 4, 1991, appear to constitute the most serious and concrete example of the suppression of the truth in these cases. The truth that is disclosed in these transcripts, and which is supportive of Mr. Brown’s defense to these perjury charges. That defense is that he was duped into providing false statements through the promise of a reward, arrested on the basis of those statements, and thereafter coerced by the authorities to continue his falsehoods at the preliminary hearing and trial of Mr. Buckley.

I don’t feel it is necessary, or even appropriate at this time to recount each instance or aspect of the testimony within these transcripts that is relevant to, and supportive of, Mr. Brown’s defense. The essential reality of these transcripts is that they contain several very apparent perjuries and/or misrepresentations by former District Attorney Hernan and Trooper Herzog concerning the false scenario they concocted of the circumstances surrounding Mr. Brown’s arrest. In fact, when closely scrutinized, these transcripts make a very good case that these entire proceedings were an absolute farce.

Our correspondence with Mr. Brown indicates that his most recent court-appointed attorney, R. Paul Rockwell, has completely ignored Mr. Brown’s request that he seek the return of these matters of record. Further, attorney Rockwell, Senior Deputy von Geis, and Judge Millin have totally ignored the very clear claim as asserted in Mr. Brown’s PCRA Petition, and concluded that no meritorious issue exists. Furthermore, the holding of an evidentiary hearing as scheduled by the court for October 8, 1999, on the issue of whether Michael Brown waived his appellate rights was/is in fact an absolute farce. The real, and very clearly stated1 issue in these proceedings, is whether Mr. Brown’s guilty plea to these charges was improperly obtained through the withholding of these transcripts.

I would also emphasize that Mr. Brown’s claims, and the questions raised thereby, are far more serious than a simple claim of withholding evidence. This is evidence withheld by the Commonwealth that is in fact evidence of the Commonwealth’s own wrongdoing. Specifically, the crimes of obstruction of justice, perjury, and conspiracy - at a minimum. Surely, it does not take a legal scholar to recognize that a plea obtained by such means cannot stand, nor to recognize the complicity of the Court, Senior Deputy Attorney General von Geis, and attorney Rockwell in refusing to even acknowledge the very clear nature, in fact even the existence, of Mr. Brown’s claim.

Due to their immediate relevance to Mr. Brown’s current action, the circumstances concerning the absence, the whereabouts, and the eventual (untimely) docketing of the transcripts of the evidentiary hearing of September 4, 1991, are of special importance and urgency. At any rate, the lengthy, and unexplained absence of these documents indicates numerous violations of proper procedures in the handling of official court records, on it’s very face. Violations which raise very serious questions, possibly involving criminal activity.

The refusal of the Court, attorney Rockwell, and Senior Deputy von Geis to acknowledge the existence of Mr. Brown’s claim is especially troubling. I am therefore requesting that you provide a complete, and detailed public accounting of the circumstances concerning the absence of these transcripts. I also believe the necessity that you exercise your judgment and authority towards the complete restoration of all records in these cases, as well as your inquiry into the circumstances of their removal and retention, to be self evident. I await your earliest response regarding your position and your intentions in this matter.