TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO REQUEST CORRUPT AND POLLUTED SOURCE CHARGE

Trial counsel Robert Donatoni was completely ineffective for failing to request a corrupt and polluted source charge. Commonwealth witnesses testified in exchange for lighter sentences, and Danny Jones was given complete immunity. He had an obvious interest in the outcome of the case.

The key witnesses against the defendant Brandon Simmers were clearly accomplices. Under Pennsylvania law the testimony of an accomplice warrants a jury instruction. the instruction provides a tool for the jury to know how to handle and consider the testimony of testifying accomplices.

"The testimony of the accomplice should be looked upon with disfavor because it comes from a corrupt and polluted source. Experience shows that after being caught in the commission of a crime a person may falsely blame others because of some corrupt and wicked motive. This charge should be given automatically where the Commonwealth witness has admitted guilt, or has been convicted of the crime, or where the evidence clearly indicates his complicity".

The key witnesses were both present and both participants. It was critical that the jury be given the accomplice liability charge that the testimony of Commonwealth key witnesses be considered with care and caution since it came from a corrupt and polluted source.

The Pennsylvania supreme court has clearly indicated that failure to give an accomplice corrupt and polluted source charge is reversible error. " whenever there is a reasonable possibility that an error might have contributed to the conviction the error is not harmless"

It is clear there is prejudice in this case, because the jury was not instructed how to evaluate the testimony. Trial counsel Robert Donatoni had no basis for not requesting charge. He so undermined the truth determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place.

TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO IMPEACH COMMONWEALTH WITNESSES

Trial counsel Robert Donatoni was completely ineffective for failing to impeach Commonwealth witnesses. Commonwealth witness Danny Jones was given immunity in exchange for his testimony. He has an extensive list of priors, and was in fact arrested for assault shortly after making a deal with the prosecutor, and defense counsel Robert Donatoni failed to impeach this witnesses denying defendant Brandon simmers his due process rights, and completely undermining the truth determining process so that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place

TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO PROPERLY CROSS EXAMINE COMMONWEALTH WITNESSES WHILE ALLOWING PROSECUTION TO LEAD

Trial counsel was completely ineffective for failing to cross examine Commonwealth witnesses while allowing prosecution to lead. Commonwealth witnesses gave rehearsed testimony that was coached by the prosecution. Their original statements given to detectives were the complete opposite of their testimony given at the trial. Trial counsel Robert Donatoni should have cross examined these witnesses and objected to the perjured testimony given, He instead did nothing while allowing the prosecution to lead with loaded questions.

TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO DO PRETRIAL DISCOVERY

Trial Counsel Robert Donatoni was completely ineffective for failing to do pretrial discovery. Commonwealth witnesses changed their testimony at the trial, and the prosecution made several crucial misstatements of evidence and introduced defective priors. Defense attorney Robert Donatoni would have been aware of this and should have acted, however he failed to do pretrial discovery. There is no way any reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place. Trial Counsel Robert Donatoni's ineffective assistance of counsel rendered the whole truth determining process unreliable, and defendant Brandon Simmers was denied his due process rights.

TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO CALL CHARACTER WITNESSES

Trial counsel Robert Donatoni was ineffective for failing to call character witnesses. He failed to prepare any defense whatsoever and Brandon Simmers was denied his due process rights. There were individuals who were prepared to testify to the defendant Brandon Simmers character, and again let the jury decide what they believe to be the truth, but Trial Counsel Robert Donatoni called no one.

FAILED TO CALL DEFENSE WITNESSES

Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call defense witness's to rebut or corroborate defendants or commonwealth witness testimony, though they were present, and prepared to testify.

I was sequestered as a possible witness for the district attorney. They did not call me to the witness stand, and I asked defense attorney Rob Donatoni to call me as a witness but he refused stating "what mother wouldn't lie for her son."

Well I wouldn't. I testified before the grand jury and my testimony was good enough for them and it should have been up to the jury to decide whether or not I was lying.

There were several individuals including myself that testified before the Grand Jury, none of us testified at the trial. Defense Attorney Robert Donatoni called no one, This could not have been the result of any rational or strategic tactical decision, he was completely ineffective for failing to call defense witnesses.

FAILED TO DISCLOSE CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Trial counsel Robert Donatoni failed to disclose conflict of interest. Trial counsel represented the Pennsylvania state police, who are employed by the commonwealth of Pennsylvania who were prosecuting my son the defendant. This information was only obtained after the trial when we read an article in the local newspaper stating just this.

Trial counsel also failed to disclose the 10,000 dollar referral fee payed to our injury attorney handling my fathers death when tragically killed by a hit and run driver.

Had we been made aware of this we never would have agreed to retrain him. that's a lot of money that we didn't have to throw away on ineffective assistance of counsel for merely being referred to him.

Trial counsel bragged about getting clients off on worse than what my son was accused of ,and he pointed to the wall of articles stating he headed the criminal defense team, bragging about his reputation. He never mentioned the referral fee and again we only found this out through appellate counsel after trial and sentencing were over. this is about as unethical as it gets.
Again we never would have threw away 10,000 on an ineffective assistance for nothing more being referred to us by an attorney who was supposed to be helping us collect on insurance policies.

This was a serious conflict of interest and extremely unethical. How low can you go. Neither deserve to be practicing law.

This was my son and fathers lives we were dealing with.