Judge rejects cop killer Poplawski's request for time, money to prepare appeal

Lawyers for the man convicted of killing three Pittsburgh police officers 15 years ago say they need a year plus funding for 500 hours of work to thoroughly investigate their client’s claims for appeal.

On Monday, a judge gave them just a fraction of that.

Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Kevin G. Sasinoski told the lawyers representing Richard Poplawski they have two months and funding for 50 hours of work by an investigator.

“I think, under the circumstances, this is a fair resolution,” the judge said.

He then declined a defense request to appeal his ruling immediately.

Poplawski, 38, was sentenced to death for killing Officers Eric G. Kelly, Stephen J. Mayhle and Paul J. Sciullo II on April 4, 2009, at his home in Stanton Heights after they were called to a domestic dispute between Poplawski and his mother.

Although he has completed his direct appeals, Poplawski is now in the post-conviction relief stage of his case, where he has been since 2017.

In a post-conviction appeal, a defendant can raise claims including that trial counsel was ineffective or that there is newly discovered evidence.

Last year, two new attorneys were appointed to represent Poplawski. In September, they filed a motion seeking additional time and taxpayer funding to file an amended petition.

At Monday’s hearing, attorneys Douglas Sughrue and Corrie Woods tried to explain their request to the court, but at each turn, the judge shut them down.

Sasinoski refused a defense request to speak to him in his chambers outside the presence of the prosecution and denied their request to call an expert witness — Marc Bookman, the executive director of the Atlantic Center for Capital Representation — to talk about how defense in death penalty cases has evolved in recent years.

A ‘lark and frolic’

As part of the post-conviction appeal, the defense is seeking to do a more thorough investigation to determine the circumstances surrounding Poplawski’s life that might lessen his culpability.

His lawyers are alleging the initial mitigation investigation was not done properly and did not include interviews with a variety of people who knew their client.

When Poplawski’s new lawyers attempted to reach the investigator used for trial, they said the man was uncooperative and told them he’d destroyed all of his files.

“That’s unfathomable,” Sughrue said.

The defense has also requested funding and permission to interview the jurors who heard the case to determine if they were improperly influenced during the trial by a variety of factors, such as public sentiments about the crime to which they might have been exposed.

Jurors were chosen from Dauphin County because of pre-trial publicity.

Sasinoski repeatedly asked the defense team if they had any evidence to support their claim about jury bias.

Woods responded that at this stage, the law doesn’t require explicit evidence.

“We’re asking to investigate external jury influence,” he said. “We need the funding and the time to investigate.”

“You’re giving me nothing, you’re presenting nothing that this actually happened,” the judge responded.

Allegheny County Deputy District Attorney Ronald M. Wabby Jr. said that the defense request is a “lark and frolic on something they don’t even know happened.”

“All they’re doing is stalling and delay,” Wabby said. “I think it’s ludicrous to continue to delay this.”

He asked the judge to set a deadline so that the post-conviction appeals are finally settled.

“The victims’ families deserve it. The community deserves it,” Wabby said.

Heavy police presence

Among the potential defense claims, they questioned whether the jurors could have additionally been unduly influenced by the large number of police officers who attended the 2011 trial. Officers often lined the hallways leading to the courtroom. Multiple times during the trial, Poplawski was paraded around the third floor of the Allegheny County Courthouse so he would be led past the media.

The jurors were sequestered by the Allegheny County Sheriff’s Office for several days and then were taken on a field trip by those deputies during the trial, Sughrue said.

Sughrue noted the heavy law enforcement presence even for Monday’s hearing in which Poplawski appeared via video.

Sasinoski’s fifth-floor courtroom was packed with officers in both uniform and street clothes, including a number of Pittsburgh homicide detectives and Pittsburgh police Acting Chief Chris Ragland.

“We can’t ignore the environment, your honor,” Sughrue said.

Wabby responded, “They were victims, your honor.”

Sughrue asked the judge to acknowledge how many officers were in the room on the official court record.

“You believe this matters — that there are 30 or 40 or 45 law enforcement officers?” Sasinoski asked, his voice getting louder. “There could be three times that. They can parade up and down the hallway. It makes no difference to me.”

While Sasinoski declined to state on the record exactly how many police officers were in the courtroom, he acknowledged their presence.

The defense attorneys were insistent in their requests, including that they needed more time and money for their investigation.

“There is going to be relief granted in this case — whether in this court or the appellate courts,” Sughrue said. “We want to do it one time. That gives this county and three officers’ families finality.”

“If we don’t do it now, it’s a denial of justice — not just in this court, but forever,” Woods added.

Sasinoski was not swayed.

“Money’s money, and what’s right is right,” Sasinoski said. “But at some point, there has to be some justification for going forward.”