Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Bruce Nelson

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania defendant was charged with rape and murder.



African American Burce Nelson, age 24, was charged with rape and murder based on a confession by Terrence Moore that he and Nelson raped and killed Connie Donovan.



According to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit:



"On November 27, 1981, Moore was interviewed by various police officers concerning the rape, robbery, and murder of the victim. After a period of time, Moore admitted his involvement in the crimes and implicated the defendant [Nelson]. The defendant, who was in the Allegheny County jail on other charges, was transported to the Public Safety Building for questioning on these charges. Prior to questioning, the defendant was given his Miranda warning and executed a written waiver of his right to counsel. Both the defendant and the codefendant were questioned by the police officers separately. However, the defendant expressed a desire to remain silent. After Moore confessed and implicated the defendant in the crimes, the police officers asked Moore to go into the room alone where the defendant was located and to tell him (the defendant) what he had done. During the confrontation between the defendant and Moore the following exchange occurred:



Def: "How much did you tell them?"



Moore: "I told it all."



The defendant then asked that Moore be removed from the room. Thereafter, Moore informed the police about what the defendant had said.



Shortly after this confrontation, Nelson was arrested for the rape and murder of Corrine Donovan.



At trial, virtually all of the evidence offered against Nelson was supplied by Moore, who gave the following testimony. Nelson and Moore stole a van and drove to a parking garage in the hopes of committing a theft. When Corrine Donovan walked into the garage, Nelson accosted her and forced her back to the van. Nelson then raped Donovan and encouraged Moore to do the same. Moore refused at first but then followed suit. After Moore finished, Nelson climbed on top of Donovan again. When Moore next looked over, Nelson had a knife in his hand and was strangling Donovan with a piece of cloth. After Nelson stopped choking Donovan, the two left her body on the floor of the garage and fled. Moore abandoned the stolen van the following morning.



According to expert testimony at trial, Moore's fingerprints were found on Donovan's purse and on her parking garage ticket. Forensic examination of the victim revealed saliva on her breast and bra that was consistent with Moore's blood type. Saliva on a cigarette butt found at the crime scene was also consistent with Moore's blood type, and hairs found in several different places on the victim and her garments matched Moore's type of hair. Nelson's fingerprints were not found at the scene and all of the saliva and hair samples found on the victim were inconsistent with Nelson's characteristics.



At the conclusion of the bench trial, the judge found Nelson guilty of the charges against him. Nelson received a life sentence for the murder. For the rape, Nelson was sentenced to ten to twenty years in prison, to run concurrently with the life sentence.

Nelson was found guilty and was sentenced to life in prison on the murder charged and ten to twenty years on the rape charge.



Nelson's conviction was based on perjured testimony and violation of his Constitutional rights



In its post-trial motions opinion, the trial court expressly rejected Nelson's claim that the Constitution compelled the suppression of his response to the confrontation with Moore. Though the court did not articulate the precise nature of Nelson's challenge, it highlighted that Nelson had not been charged or arrested at the time of the questioning and that his inculpatory statement "was not in response to any question posed by the police or Moore." In light of those facts, the state court held that the admission of Nelson's statement violated neither the United States nor the Pennsylvania Constitution.



The opinion of Pennsylvania's Superior Court sounded a similar theme:



No constitutional rights of the appellant were violated when the appellant volunteered the question to Moore: "How much did you tell them." A statement which is spontaneously volunteered is admissible notwithstanding a prior assertion of constitutional rights. The Commonwealth has conceded that the police sought to confront the appellant with Moore's confession. However, there is no prohibition against the police confronting a suspect with incriminating evidence and doing so does not necessarily render his statement involuntary.



The Pennsylvania Supreme Court declined to review the case.



Nelson then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the United States State Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania but relief was denied on a finding that the behavior of the police did not violate the prophylactic rules set out in the Supreme Court's Fifth and Sixth Amendment jurisprudence and that Nelson's remark was voluntary and thus admissible.



He then appealed and the Third Circuit which reversed.



On remand, the Commonwealth obtained DNA tests to prepare for a new trial Th results of the DNA tests excluded Nelson as the assailant.



On the basis of the result of the DNA testing, Nelson was cleared of all charged on August 28, 1991.



Nelson served 9 years of his sentence.



Nelson then sued Allegheny County and others on civil rights violation theories but his suit was not successful and it was dismissed on February 2, 1995 based on a finding by the court that the his Constitutional rights were not violated by the Defendants.

The term "prophylactic rules" in the context of Fifth and Sixth Amendment jurisprudence refers to measures implemented by the Supreme Court to deter violations of these constitutional rights, even before such violations occur. These rules are preventative in nature, aiming to ensure fair trials and protect individuals from self-incrimination or unfair treatment by the criminal justice system.

Here are some examples of prophylactic rules in Fifth and Sixth Amendment jurisprudence:

Fifth Amendment:

Exclusionary Rule: This rule excludes from trial any evidence obtained in violation of the Miranda warnings, such as confessions made without being informed of the right to remain silent and to consult with an attorney. This rule serves as a significant deterrent to law enforcement officers not properly administering Miranda warnings.
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine: This doctrine excludes evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search or seizure. It discourages police officers from conducting unlawful searches and ensures that illegally obtained evidence does not taint the judicial process.
Grand Jury Witness Immunity: This rule grants legal immunity to witnesses appearing before a grand jury, incentivizing them to testify truthfully without fear of self-incrimination.

Sixth Amendment:

Right to Counsel: The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to an attorney during all stages of a criminal prosecution, including police interrogation, preliminary hearings, and trial. This ensures that defendants have legal representation to protect their rights and navigate the complexities of the criminal justice system.
Speedy Trial Rule: This rule mandates that criminal trials be held within a reasonable timeframe to prevent excessive pretrial detention and protect the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial.
Exclusion of Out-of-Court Statements: In certain cases, the Sixth Amendment requires that statements made by a defendant be admitted at trial only if the defendant had the opportunity to confront the declarant (the person who made the statement) in court. This protects the defendant's right to cross-examination and ensures a fair trial.

It's important to note that prophylactic rules are not without controversy. Some argue that they can create legal technicalities that impede law enforcement or lead to the exclusion of relevant evidence. However, proponents of these rules argue that they are essential safeguards against abusive police conduct and unfair trials, ultimately upholding the core principles of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court's use of prophylactic rules reflects its commitment to balancing the interests of law enforcement and criminal justice with the fundamental rights of individuals guaranteed by the Constitution.