Pa. Supreme Court to consider jurisdiction question in second-degree murder lawsuit

Attorneys representing people convicted of second-degree murder in Pennsylvania believe that the mandatory penalty of life in prison without the possibility of parole is unconstitutional.

But before the attorneys can begin arguing why they think that penalty is cruel and unusual punishment, given that their clients did not actually kill anyone else, they must first convince the state Supreme Court that Commonwealth Court has jurisdiction over the issue.

Six people serving life without parole sentences in Pennsylvania for second-degree murder all submitted applications seeking parole to the state board, but each request was denied because, under Pennsylvania law, those serving life prison terms are not eligible for early release.

Based on those denials, in July 2020, their attorneys filed a lawsuit in Commonwealth Court against the state Board of Probation and Parole alleging that they were being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment.

However, in May, the Commonwealth Court issued a 20-page opinion dismissing the lawsuit. The court never got to the constitutional issue, instead siding with attorneys representing the board who said that the case belonged in appellate proceedings for each individual petitioner because they are challenging the legality of their sentences.

The petitioners filed an appeal, and on Wednesday, the state Supreme Court held oral arguments on their right to be heard on their constitutional claim.

Bret Grote, the legal director of Abolitionist Law Center who represents the petitioners, argued that his clients are challenging the parole code, not the sentences imposed on them. The claims should not be heard by individual trial courts, he said.

Grote said he is not seeking to have each person serving life for second-degree murder — about 1,100 people statewide — resentenced.

Instead, the relief they will ask for is simply to allow those individuals the opportunity to seek parole review.

“Being parole eligible would not alter that petitioners are subject to life imprisonment,” Grote said.

Chief Deputy Attorney General Ronald M. Eisenberg, representing the parole board, said the state legislature could change Pennsylvania’s statute that refuses parole for second-degree murder.

“They haven’t done that,” he said. “That would be a matter of policy. It’s clear what the existing law is.”

The petitioners’ claims, Eisenberg said, go directly to sentencing.

“The ineligibility of parole is part of the sentence … therefore, they are challenging the legality of the sentence,” Eisenberg said.