Lawyers representing the man convicted of killing three Pittsburgh police officers 15 years ago are in a battle for resources. They claim they need a year plus funding for 500 hours of work to thoroughly investigate their client's claims for appeal. However, a judge has only granted them two months and funding for 50 hours of work. Richard Poplawski was sentenced to death for the killings on April 4, 2009, after police were called to a domestic dispute. He is now in the post-conviction relief stage since 2017.

Unraveling the Circumstances of a Controversial Case

Post-Conviction Appeal: A Thorough Investigation

The defense is determined to do a more comprehensive investigation to understand the circumstances surrounding Poplawski's life and potentially lessen his culpability. They allege that the initial mitigation investigation was not done properly and did not include interviews with those who knew him. When new lawyers tried to reach the trial investigator, they were uncooperative and the files were destroyed. This has led to a request for funding and permission to interview jurors to determine if they were improperly influenced.There is a need to explore external factors that could have affected the jury's decision. Jurors were chosen from Dauphin County due to pre-trial publicity. The defense is seeking to understand if the large number of police officers present during the 2011 trial unduly influenced the jurors. Officers often lined the hallways and Poplawski was paraded around the courthouse. The jurors were sequestered and taken on a field trip during the trial. Even for Monday's hearing via video, there was a heavy police presence.

Defense Requests and Judge's Response

The defense has made several requests, including more time and money for their investigation. They argue that there will be relief granted in the case and they want to do it right. However, the judge has been reluctant to grant their requests. He has repeatedly asked for evidence to support their claims about jury bias and has been skeptical of their arguments. The deputy district attorney has accused the defense of stalling and delay.There is a clear divide between the defense and the prosecution. The defense insists on the importance of their investigation, while the prosecution wants the post-conviction appeals to be settled. The victims' families and the community deserve closure, but the judge is concerned about the justification for going forward.

Impact of the Police Presence

The heavy police presence during the trial and subsequent hearings cannot be ignored. It has raised questions about its potential influence on the jury. The defense believes that it created an environment that could have affected the jurors' decision-making. The judge, on the other hand, is dismissive of the argument, stating that it makes no difference.This case highlights the complex issues involved in post-conviction appeals and the challenges faced by both the defense and the prosecution. It also raises questions about the role of the police in the legal process and the potential impact on jury decisions.