RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS OF THE PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S

OFFICE TO SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM SERVED BY THE SELECT COMMITTEE

ON RESTORING LAW AND ORDER

The Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office (the “District Attorney’s Office” or “Office”)

responds to the Subpoena Duces Tecum (“Subpoena”) of the “Select Committee on Restoring

Law and Order” (“Select Committee”), dated August 8, 2022, as follows.

In responding and objecting to the Requests, the District Attorney’s Office does not (a)

agree to or accept the characterization of the conduct or activities described in the Requests; or

(b) admit or acknowledge that it possesses or is aware of documents responsive to the Requests.

The District Attorney’s Office reserves its rights to assert additional objections as well as to

supplement, clarify, revise, or correct any objection or response.

If the Select Committee believes that any response or objection is unclear or does not

comport with the District Attorney’s Office’s obligations, counsel for the Office is available to

meet and confer with counsel for the Select Committee.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

1. The District Attorney’s Office incorporates herein the attached letter dated August

22, 2022, sent by its counsel to counsel to Chairman John A. Lawrence. The letter provides an

overview of the District Attorney’s Office’s objections which include, but are not limited to, that

the Select Committee’s Investigation and Subpoena Requests do not serve a proper legislative

purpose, violate separation of powers, invade legal privileges, and seek to deny the constitutional

rights of Philadelphia’s citizens.

OBJECTIONS TO INSTRUCTIONS

1. Instruction 1 requests that the District Attorney’s Office furnish the Select

Committee documents in the Office’s possession and available to it, from among others, “the

1
Office’s employees, officers, agents, attorneys, investigators, etc.” The District Attorney’s

Office objects to this instruction on the grounds set forth in General Objection 1, as well as that it

imposes obligations that are unduly burdensome and beyond that required by law.

2. Instructions 2 and 4 request the preparation of specified logs. The District

Attorney’s Office objects to these instructions on the grounds that: (a) the Requests do not serve

a proper legislative purpose, violate separation of powers, invade legal privileges, and seek to

deny the constitutional rights of Philadelphia’s citizens; (b) the Requests are subject to Specific

Objections set forth below; and (c) these Instructions are unduly burdensome and oppressive.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO REQUESTS

REQEUST No. 1:
Produce all Documents containing, referring to, or relating to positions or policies of
the DAO or D.A. Krasner regarding decisions not to enforce or charge certain provisions of
the Crimes Code, 18 Pa. C.S. § 101, et seq., including, but not limited to, any blanket or
other policies or procedures, or any directives, not to (a) arrest, charge, or prosecute any
individuals or categories of individuals; or (b) arrest, charge, or prosecute any crimes or
categories of crimes.
OBJECTIONS and RESPONSE:

The District Attorney’s Office objects to this Request on the grounds that the Select

Committee’s Investigation and this Request do not serve a proper legislative purpose, violate

separation of powers, invade legal privileges, and seek to deny the constitutional rights of

Philadelphia’s citizens. Additionally, the District Attorney’s Office objects on the ground that

this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome. The District Attorney’s Office further

objects to this request to the extent that it seeks documents and information protected by the

attorney-client privilege, executive privilege, deliberative privilege, investigative privilege, and

work product doctrine.

2
 Pursuant to these objections, the District Attorney’s Office will not search for or produce

any documents in response to this Request.

REQUEST NO. 2:
Produce all Documents containing, referring to, or relating to positions or policies of
the DAO or D.A. Krasner regarding decisions to offer standard, systematic, across-the-
board, or uniform plea bargains for certain individuals or categories of individuals, or for
individuals charged with certain crimes or categories of crimes.
OBJECTIONS and RESPONSE:

The District Attorney’s Office objects to this Request on the grounds that the Select

Committee’s Investigation and this Request do not serve a proper legislative purpose, violate

separation of powers, invade legal privileges, and seek to deny the constitutional rights of

Philadelphia’s citizens. Additionally, the District Attorney’s Office objects on the ground that

this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome. The District Attorney’s Office further

objects to this request to the extent that it seeks documents and information protected by the

attorney-client privilege, executive privilege, deliberative privilege, investigative privilege, and

work product doctrine.

Pursuant to these objections, the District Attorney’s Office will not search for or produce

any documents in response to this Request.

REQUEST NO. 3:
Produce all Documents containing, referring to, or relating to positions or policies of
the DAO or D.A. Krasner regarding decisions to offer standard, systematic, across-the-
board, or uniform reduced sentences for certain individuals or categories of individuals, or
for individuals charged with certain crimes or categories of crimes.
OBJECTIONS and RESPONSE:

The District Attorney’s Office objects to this Request on the grounds that the Select

Committee’s Investigation and this Request do not serve a proper legislative purpose, violate

separation of powers, invade legal privileges, and seek to deny the constitutional rights of

Philadelphia’s citizens. Additionally, the District Attorney’s Office objects on the ground that

3
this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome. The District Attorney’s Office further

objects to this request to the extent that it seeks documents and information protected by the

attorney-client privilege, executive privilege, deliberative privilege, investigative privilege, and

work product doctrine.

Pursuant to these objections, the District Attorney’s Office will not search for or produce

any documents in response to this Request.

REQUEST NO. 4:
Produce all Documents containing, referring to, or relating to positions or policies of
the DAO or D.A. Krasner regarding decisions to make standard, systematics, across-the-
board, or uniform bail recommendations for certain individuals or categories of
individuals, or for individuals charged with certain crimes or categories of crimes.
OBJECTIONS and RESPONSE:

The District Attorney’s Office objects to this Request on the grounds that the Select

Committee’s Investigation and this Request do not serve a proper legislative purpose, violate

separation of powers, invade legal privileges, and seek to deny the constitutional rights of

Philadelphia’s citizens. Additionally, the District Attorney’s Office objects on the ground that

this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome. The District Attorney’s Office further

objects to this request to the extent that it seeks documents and information protected by the

attorney-client privilege, executive privilege, deliberative privilege, investigative privilege, and

work product doctrine.

Pursuant to these objections, the District Attorney’s Office will not search for or produce

any documents in response to this Request.

REQUEST NO. 5:
Produce all Documents containing, referring to, or relating to positions or policies
of the DAO or D.A. Krasner regarding the investigation or prosecution of law
enforcement officers.
OBJECTIONS and RESPONSE:

4
 The District Attorney’s Office objects to this Request on the grounds that the Select

Committee’s Investigation and this Request do not serve a proper legislative purpose, violate

separation of powers, invade legal privileges, and seek to deny the constitutional rights of

Philadelphia’s citizens. Additionally, the District Attorney’s Office objects on the ground that

this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome. The District Attorney’s Office further

objects to this request to the extent that it seeks documents and information protected by the

attorney-client privilege, executive privilege, deliberative privilege, investigative privilege, and

work product doctrine.

Pursuant to these objections, the District Attorney’s Office will not search for or produce

any documents in response to this Request.

REQUEST NO. 6:
Produce all Documents containing, referring to, or relating to positions or policies of
the DAO or D.A. Krasner regarding use of investigative grand juries in homicide crimes.
OBJECTIONS and RESPONSE:

The District Attorney’s Office objects to this Request on the grounds that the Select

Committee’s Investigation and this Request do not serve a proper legislative purpose, violate

separation of powers, invade legal privileges, and seek to deny the constitutional rights of

Philadelphia’s citizens. Additionally, the District Attorney’s Office objects on the ground that

this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome. The District Attorney’s Office further

objects to this request to the extent that it seeks documents and information protected by the

attorney-client privilege, executive privilege, deliberative privilege, investigative privilege, and

work product doctrine.

Pursuant to these objections, the District Attorney’s Office will not search for or produce

any documents in response to this Request..

REQUEST NO. 7:

5
 Produce all Documents containing, referring to, or relating to positions or policies of
the DAO or D.A. Krasner regarding (a) the placement of law enforcement officers on any
do-not-testify list or (b) the process for deciding what law enforcement officers cannot be
called as witness for the Commonwealth.
OBJECTIONS and RESPONSE:

The District Attorney’s Office objects to this Request on the grounds that the Select

Committee’s Investigation and this Request do not serve a proper legislative purpose, violate

separation of powers, invade legal privileges, and seek to deny the constitutional rights of

Philadelphia’s citizens. Additionally, the District Attorney’s Office objects on the ground that

this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome. The District Attorney’s Office further

objects to this request to the extent that it seeks documents and information protected by the

attorney-client privilege, executive privilege, deliberative privilege, investigative privilege, and

work product doctrine.

Pursuant to these objections, the District Attorney’s Office will not search for or produce

any documents in response to this Request.

REQUEST NO. 8:
Produce all Documents containing, referring to, or relating to any policies or
procedures of, or trainings by, the DAO or D.A. Krasner regarding compliance with the
Crime Victims Act, 18 P.S. § 11.101, et seq., including, but not limited to, policies,
procedures, or trainings related to notice of actions and proceedings, including, without
limitation, sentencing hearings, required to be given to victims.
OBJECTIONS and RESPONSE:

The District Attorney’s Office objects to this Request on the grounds that the Select

Committee’s Investigation and this Request do not serve a proper legislative purpose, violate

separation of powers, invade legal privileges, and seek to deny the constitutional rights of

Philadelphia’s citizens. Additionally, the District Attorney’s Office objects on the ground that

this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome. The District Attorney’s Office further

objects to this request to the extent that it seeks documents and information protected by the

6
attorney-client privilege, executive privilege, deliberative privilege, investigative privilege, and

work product doctrine.

Pursuant to these objections, the District Attorney’s Office will not search for or produce

any documents in response to this Request.

REQUEST NO. 9:
Produce the complete case file and all Documents related to the investigation and
prosecution of Ryan Pownall, Docket Number CP-51-CR-0007307-2018, including, but not
limited to, Documents related or referring to the investigative grand jury proceedings.
OBJECTIONS and RESPONSE:

The District Attorney’s Office objects to this Request on the grounds that the Select

Committee’s Investigation and this Request do not serve a proper legislative purpose, violate

separation of powers, invade legal privileges, and seek to deny the constitutional rights of

Philadelphia’s citizens. Additionally, the District Attorney’s Office objects on the ground that

this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome. The District Attorney’s Office further

objects to this request to the extent that it seeks documents and information protected by the

attorney-client privilege, executive privilege, deliberative privilege, investigative privilege, and

work product doctrine. Additionally, the District Attorney’s Office objects to this request on the

basis that it seeks documents subject to grand jury secrecy protections.

Pursuant to its objections, the District Attorney’s Office will not search for or produce any

documents in response to this Request.

REQUEST NO. 10:

Produce all Documents related to the investigating grand jury's investigation of
Ryan Pownall and the shooting of David Jones including, but not limited to, the Notice of
Submission, all written materials provided to the investigating grand jury, and the
transcript of all grand jury proceedings, related to the investigation of Ryan Pownall.
OBJECTIONS and RESPONSE:

7
 The District Attorney’s Office objects to this Request on the grounds that the Select

Committee’s Investigation and this Request do not serve a proper legislative purpose, violate

separation of powers, invade legal privileges, and seek to deny the constitutional rights of

Philadelphia’s citizens. Additionally, the District Attorney’s Office objects on the ground that

this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome. The District Attorney’s Office further

objects to this request to the extent that it seeks documents and information protected by the

attorney-client privilege, executive privilege, deliberative privilege, investigative privilege, and

work product doctrine. Additionally, the District Attorney’s Office objects to this request on the

basis that it seeks documents subject to grand jury secrecy protections.

Pursuant to its objections, the District Attorney’s Office will not search for or produce

documents in response to this Request.

REQUEST NO. 11:

Produce all Documents containing, referring to, or relating to any policies or
procedures of the DAO or D.A. Krasner regarding the DAO’s service of subpoenas on
third parties and the DAO’s acceptance of subpoenas served on the DAO, including, but
not necessarily limited to, the appointment of a particular employee of the DAO as the
person who may accept service.
OBJECTIONS and RESPONSE:

The District Attorney’s Office objects to this Request on the grounds that the Select

Committee’s Investigation and this Request do not serve a proper legislative purpose, violate

separation of powers, invade legal privileges, and seek to deny the constitutional rights of

Philadelphia’s citizens. Additionally, the District Attorney’s Office objects on the ground that

this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome. The District Attorney’s Office further

objects to this request to the extent that it seeks documents and information protected by the

attorney-client privilege, executive privilege, deliberative privilege, investigative privilege, and

work product doctrine.

8
 Pursuant to its objections, the District Attorney’s Office will not search for or produce any

documents in response to this Request.

Dated: August 22, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

s/John S. Summers
John S. Summers (ID No. 41854)
Cary L. Rice (ID No. 325227)
HANGLEY ARONCHICK SEGAL PUDLIN &
SCHILLER
One Logan Square, 27th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(215) 568-6200 (telephone)
[email protected]
[email protected]
Counsel for the District Attorney’s Office

s/Michael J. Satin
Michael J. Satin
Timothy P. O’Toole
Mark J. Rochon
MILLER & CHEVALIER CHARTERED
900 16th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 626-6009
Fax: (202) 626-5801
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Counsel for the District Attorney’s Office,
working in association with counsel admitted to
practice law in Pennsylvania