Conviction Overturned After DA and Judge Exchanged Texts During Trial

Posted in Constitutional Rights on June 4, 2026

Improper & Unethical Ex Parte Communications

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has granted a new trial to a Centre County defendant after finding that undisclosed text message communications between the trial judge and prosecutor during trial violated the defendant’s constitutional right to due process.  In Commonwealth v. Brooks 1550 MDA 2024, the court reviewed allegations that the former Centre County District Attorney exchanged text messages with the presiding over Brooks’ attempted homicide trial. Brooks was convicted and sentenced, and he thereafter spent years appealing various aspects of his case.  Ultimately, at a Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) proceeding, evidence was presented that showed some of the texts involved complaints from the prosecutor about the judge’s handling of objections and trial matters.

Surprisingly, the judge presiding over the PCRA denied the granting of a new trial by finding that there was no proof that the communications actually influenced the judge’s rulings.  No one questioned that the communication violated ethical rules and judicial canons, but the PCRA court ruled that Brooks’s constitutional right were not violated.

Appeal to Superior Court

The decision was appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. The Superior Court disagreed with the PCRA Court’s ruling. The Superior Court held that such ex parte communications created an unacceptable risk of judicial bias. The court classified the conduct as a “structural error,” meaning Brooks was not required to prove actual prejudice or harm. The court emphasized that private communications between a prosecutor and judge concerning an ongoing trial undermine public confidence in the fairness of the judicial system. Because no record of the messages was preserved and the communications were never disclosed to the defense, the court concluded that the integrity of the trial process had been compromised.

As a result, the Superior Court reversed the denial of PCRA relief and ordered a new trial.

Why It Matters

This decision reinforces Pennsylvania’s strict prohibition against ex parte communications and confirms that undisclosed communications between judges and prosecutors during trial may require a new trial even without proof that the verdict was affected.  On a side note, the prosecutor was suspended by the discplinary board for one year based upon these communications and other ethical violations. Regrettably, the judge did not run for relection and was not punished.