Rep. Craig Williams, chairman of the House impeachment managers, has announced that an appeal has been filed in the state Supreme Court regarding the Commonwealth Court’s ruling on District Attorney Larry Krasner’s impeachment case. The appeal challenges the court’s conclusion that there was no misbehavior in office by DA Krasner as alleged in the Articles of Impeachment.
Williams stated, “We have appealed the Commonwealth Court ruling concluding there was no misbehavior in office by DA Krasner as alleged in the Articles of Impeachment. Our brief sets out a thorough dismantling of that position.” He argued that the lower court improperly used ethics rules to determine unlawful conduct, suggesting that Krasner’s actions could have been alleged as crimes.
The appeal highlights Pennsylvania’s official oppression statute, which makes it a crime for a public official to knowingly and intentionally deprive another’s legal rights. Williams emphasized instances where DA Krasner allegedly used his office to do just that, affecting police officers and crime victims. “In fact, the many alleged instances of DA Krasner and his office lying to the courts constitute overt acts in furtherance of several instances of official oppression – a crime,” he continued.
A key focus of the appeal is the case involving Police Officer Robert Pownall. It is claimed that Krasner’s office failed to provide legal instructions for homicide and deliberately chose not to inform grand jurors about a justification defense available to Officer Pownall. The trial court found that the district attorney’s office demonstrated “a lack of candor” and was “disingenuous with the Court.”
The district attorney’s office is also accused of withholding an expert report from Officer Pownall, which concluded his use of deadly force was justified. Williams asserted, “As properly alleged, District Attorney Krasner and his office knowingly made false statements to the courts, failed to disclose evidence in court, prejudiced the administration of justice and neglected to provide legally required notice to victims of crime.”
Williams concluded by stating their intent to prove criminal activity at trial: “If the lower court wants us to prove criminal activity, our articles have alleged such conduct, we will make that case to the Supreme Court, and we will then prove it at trial.”
