The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office must provide the state Attorney General’s Office an opportunity to review cases before convictions can be overturned in state court, a decision that included sharp criticism of how the city has handled conviction-review proceedings in recent years, as reported [1] by The Post Millennial.
The ruling stemmed from a King’s Bench petition and focused on the handling of post-conviction cases by the office of Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner.
At the center of the case was Lavar Brown, who was convicted in Philadelphia in connection with murders linked to robberies and shootings that occurred in 2003 and 2005.
District Attorney Larry Krasner’s Response to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Opinion in the Lavar Brown Case – Office of the District Attorney : City of Philadelphia https://t.co/c2KM6uUCOk [2]
— momma3+3 (@mom2325398) June 17, 2026 [3]
According to reports, Brown received a life sentence in the 2003 case and was sentenced to death in the 2005 case.
Under Krasner’s administration, the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office revisited Brown’s convictions through post-conviction proceedings and ultimately conceded error in the case.
In its opinion, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court concluded that the Attorney General’s Office should have a greater role in reviewing such cases when prosecutors seek to vacate convictions.
The court determined that state prosecutors must be given an opportunity to examine the evidence and ensure an appropriate investigation has been conducted before relief is granted.
The court’s written opinion went beyond the specifics of Brown’s case and offered a broad assessment of the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office’s approach to conviction reviews.
According to the ruling, Brown’s case exposed what the justices described as a recurring pattern of problems.
The court stated that the District Attorney’s Office had “conceded relief although none was warranted,” violated its duty of candor, withheld material evidence, misstated facts, failed to conduct a reasonable investigation, and opposed a required evidentiary hearing.
The justices further noted that since 2018, the office had conceded relief in more than 100 cases.
In discussing those cases, the court cited what it described as “numerous instances of untrustworthy concessions, lack of candor, misrepresentations of fact, lack of adequate investigation, and avoidance of hearings.”
The opinion also characterized the office as “unreliable.”
The ruling represents a significant rebuke of Philadelphia’s conviction-review process and could affect how future post-conviction cases are handled in Pennsylvania’s largest city.
Krasner strongly criticized the decision after it was released, arguing that it undermines the authority of local voters and the discretion of elected prosecutors.
Responding to the ruling, Krasner said:
“Does that help democracy? No. It actually undermines the value of a vote in Philadelphia as compared to every other county.”
He also disputed the notion that the decision would improve public safety or confidence in the justice system.
“Does it help with safety? We’ve already seen that there being integrity in the system and correcting the mistakes of the past builds trust, makes people more willing to go to court, to testify, and to contact the police,” Krasner said.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision establishes a new requirement for cases in which the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office seeks to overturn convictions through post-conviction proceedings.
In the future, the Attorney General’s Office must be allowed to review those matters before relief can be granted in state court.
The ruling also places renewed scrutiny on Philadelphia’s conviction-review efforts, which have resulted in more than 100 concessions of relief since 2018 and have become a defining feature of Krasner’s tenure as district attorney.
While the court’s decision arose from the Brown case, its broader impact is expected to shape future conviction challenges and the relationship between state and local prosecutors across Pennsylvania.