Com. v. Freeman, B.

2026 Pa. Super. 5

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: January 9, 2026
• Docket: 1007 EDA 2024
• Status: Published

Opinion

J-A22014-25 J-A22015-25

2026 PA Super 5

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : BRYAN ROBERT FREEMAN : : Appellant : No. 1007 EDA 2024

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 29, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-39-CR-0001077-1995

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : DAVID JONATHAN FREEMAN : : Appellant : No. 1308 EDA 2024

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 27, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-39-CR-0001078-1995

BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., SULLIVAN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. *

DISSENTING OPINION BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED JANUARY 9, 2026

Respectfully, I would find that Judge Reichley did not commit an abuse

of discretion in declining to recuse himself. I would affirm citing to the

Williams, supra, standard based on four distinguishing factors.

First, there are separate defendants in this case. In Williams, Justice

Castille prosecuted Terrance Williams and then later ruled on the same ____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-A22014-25 J-A22015-25

defendant’s appeal as a member of the state supreme court. Here, Judge

Reichley prosecuted an unrelated copycat, Howorth, and wrote an appellate

brief against a codefendant, Birdwell. Neither of these defendants are the

Freeman brothers.

Second, there was no direct involvement in the original conviction as

then-ADA Reichley. In Williams, the United Stated Supreme Court held, “The

Constitution requires recusal where a judge had prior significant personal

involvement as a prosecutor in a critical decision regarding the defendant’s

case.” Williams, 579 U.S. at *8 (emphasis added). There, the risk of bias was

found to be unacceptable when Justice Castille personally approved the

decision to seek the death penalty and ruled on the appeal in the very same

case he prosecuted. In the instant case, Judge Reichley had no direct

involvement, let alone prior significant personal involvement, in the

prosecution and conviction of either Freeman brother or their cousin and co-

defendant, Birdwell.

Third, Judge Reichley did not make a critical decision in Birdwell’s case.

In Williams, the authorization of the death penalty was a critical decision.

Here, then-ADA Reichley represented the Commonwealth in writing an

appellee’s brief in response to Birdwell’s appellate brief. The mere writing of

an appellate brief without any prior involvement is not the type of “critical

decision” contemplated in Williams.

Fourth, the timing of the involvement was tenuous. In Williams, Justice

Castille acted as a prosecutor and then a Judge within the life cycle of Williams’

-2- J-A22014-25 J-A22015-25

case. Here, Judge Reichley’s resentencing in the Freeman case occurred 29

years after prosecuting the copycat, Howorth, and 25 years after writing the

brief in Birdwell’s appeal.

In sum, Reichley never personally handled or made critical decisions in

the case of the Freeman brothers whom he resentenced. His involvement in

related but separate proceedings—the copycat case and the cousin’s appeal—

is not enough to meet the Williams test. The passage of decades and the

indirect, procedural nature of the involvement, i.e., writing one brief,

overcomes any claim of the appearance of personal bias.

Additionally, the resentencing issue in Freeman’s case was distinct from

the issue Birdwell raised on appeal which then-ADA Reichley addressed in the

brief 25 years ago. Bridwell was an adult at the time of the murders; thus, in

writing the Commonwealth brief, Reichley would not have been concerned

with—and would not have needed to consider, research, or address—any

issues related to sentencing a minor who committed the Freeman parents’

murder. Judge Reichley’s role was disconnected in time, disconnected in party,

and disconnected in function. In the interest of not wasting judicial resources

and for these reasons enunciated supra I would affirm.

-3-