END FELONY MURDER NOW
For nearly a decade, Derek Lee had been serving a life sentence for his role in a Pittsburgh murder.
Then, last month, he called his attorney.
“They overturned your case,” the lawyer said. “Your sentence has been held unconstitutional.”
“Praise be to God,” said Lee, 38. “Praise be to God.”
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court had struck down the state’s mandatory life-without-parole sentence for second-degree murder, ruling it violates the state constitution’s ban on cruel punishment. While the decision does not automatically apply to people already sentenced, it opened a path — and a legal fight — over whether those long condemned to die in prison may now seek resentencing.
Lee’s case was the vehicle.
The person behind the case
Lee grew up in Pittsburgh, a small, wiry boy, the youngest of two children in a close-knit family. He played baseball and basketball, and worked as a youth camp counselor at his grandmother’s church.
His father later moved to Ashtabula, Ohio, splitting the family across state lines. Lee went back and forth between them.
In his teens, Lee’s life shifted. He drifted into street life and graduated high school “by my teeth,” he said.
When Lee was 18, he and another man shot at a group of basketball players outside a college party. Although five players were injured, none of the bullets from Lee’s gun struck anyone. Lee was convicted of attempted criminal homicide and sentenced to seven to 14 years in prison.
When he was released, Lee’s family welcomed him home with a celebration and his mother’s seven-cheese macaroni. He was 25. He found work as a dishwasher, but struggled to stabilize his life, Lee said.
Within a year, he was arrested again.
The crime — and the law
In 2014, Lee and Paul Durham, armed with a handgun and a Taser, pushed their way into a Pittsburgh home. Police said they went at the request of the spurned ex-lover of the man living there, Leonard Butler, 44.
Inside, Lee and Durham forced Butler and his girlfriend into the basement. They ordered them to their knees. Lee struck Butler with the gun and used the Taser on him before going upstairs with Butler’s watch.
In the basement, Butler lunged for Durham’s weapon, and in the struggle, Butler was shot and killed.
Repeated attempts to reach Butler’s family for comment were unsuccessful.
At Lee’s trial in 2016, prosecutors argued that even though he did not fire the fatal shot, his participation in the robbery made him responsible for Butler’s death under Pennsylvania’s felony murder law. A jury convicted Lee of second-degree murder, robbery, and conspiracy.
Lee’s sentence was automatic: life in prison without the possibility of parole. That legal structure — not the crime — became the focus of Lee’s constitutional challenge.
‘I had to do something’
In prison again, Lee said, he reached a breaking point. “I just hit that rock-bottom place where I knew I had to do something,” he said.
He turned to religion. He entered a chaplain’s program, and trained service dogs. He also appealed his case himself, and began mentoring incarcerated men serving long or life sentences.
“Society throws away people like us,” Lee said. “It … judges them by one of the worst moments in their life. But I truly believe that people can be redeemed.”
That belief now frames how he views his own case: not only as a chance for himself, but also as a test of whether others like him might one day have a similar opportunity.
“It’s really central to his own appeal that this is a vehicle for others,” said his attorney, Bret Grote, legal director of the Abolitionist Law Center, who took Lee’s case in 2021.
The case that reached the court
Lee’s appeal arrived at the high court in 2024. By then, similar challenges had successfully advanced across the country, as courts began revisiting life-without-parole sentences tied to felony murder laws. Pennsylvania and Louisiana remained among the few states still requiring mandatory life terms for second-degree murder.
Earlier Pennsylvania challenges had failed, including a broad constitutional case brought by a group of incarcerated people that the state Supreme Court rejected without weighing its merits.
Lee’s case offered a narrower legal path — one that allowed the court to confront the sentencing structure directly, Grote said.
In arguments before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 2024, Lee’s attorney said he had been sentenced to die in prison for a killing in which he was not the triggerman.
Allegheny County Assistant District Attorney Kevin McCarthy countered that Lee took part in the crime that ended in Butler’s death. He defended the law as reflective of the foreseeable consequence of violent felonies.
Revisiting such cases, McCarthy warned, would force courts into “mini trials” years after convictions.
Last month, the court sided with Lee.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Debra Todd said the law “fails to assess individual culpability” and risks imposing the state’s harshest punishment without the scrutiny the Pennsylvania Constitution requires.
What comes next
Lee will be resentenced, though no hearing has been scheduled.
Even then, the outcome is uncertain.
Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen Zappala canceled a scheduled interview and did not respond to follow-up requests, leaving unclear how his office plans to approach the case.
A judge could still sentence Lee to life imprisonment for his crimes.
The court gave the state legislature 120 days to determine how the ruling should apply to people already serving mandatory life sentences. Bills have been introduced but have not advanced to a vote.
The delay leaves courts, prosecutors, and defense attorneys navigating a shifting legal landscape without clear guidance. If applied retroactively, the ruling could reopen more than 1,000 cases, requiring courts to reassess individual roles in crimes that, in some cases, occurred decades ago.
Benjamin Lerner, a former Philadelphia Common Pleas Court judge who presided over homicide cases, said the system already navigated a similar process after the U.S. Supreme Court barred mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juveniles, resulting in hundreds of resentencings. “We learned how to do this,” he said.
Others expect a heavier toll.
Former Chester County District Attorney Thomas Hogan, now a law professor at South Texas College of Law in Houston, said reopening the cases could be deeply disruptive, particularly for victims’ families. “It’s like having been diagnosed with cancer, surviving, and then finding out 20 years later that you’ve come out of remission,” he said.
Montgomery County District Attorney Kevin R. Steele said “not all defendants serving time for second-degree murder were the proverbial getaway driver,” adding that many were more active participants.
Lerner acknowledged that. “There are cases where the defendant didn’t pull the trigger and is still equally responsible,” he said. “And there are cases where a judge would still say life without parole is appropriate.”
The court’s decision does not prevent that outcome. It simply requires that it not be automatic.
“Judges can still impose life without parole,” said Samah Sisay, another attorney on Lee’s case. “We would hope they steer away from that, but it’s still on the table.”
I overcame a life without parole sentence. Now, more than 1,100 more are poised to join me in Pa.
Now, it is up to the state legislature to act, and act with deliberation and speed.
Robert Saleem Holbrook
April 27, 2026
7:00 am
Last month, in a unanimous decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that mandatory life without parole sentences imposed after a conviction for second-degree (felony murder) were unconstitutional.
Immediately over 1,000 people in prisons across the state learned that the sentences they are serving violates their rights under the Pennsylvania Constitution. Some have already served over 40 years in prison.
In the decision, the state’s highest court directed the Pennsylvania legislature to fashion a remedy within 120 days. The case was brought by the Abolitionist Law Center, Amistad Law Project, and Center for Constitutional Rights.
Don't count on social media algorithms to help you find a trusted news source. Sign up for our free morning newsletter.
I know firsthand the experience of serving an unconstitutional sentence.
For 27 years, I served a mandatory life without parole sentence for my conviction as an accomplice to first-degree murder. I was a juvenile at the time of the offense, conviction and sentencing. The judge in my case was not able to take into consideration my diminished culpability in the offense or capacity for change.
My sentence was only invalidated after the United States Supreme Court ruled in Miller v. Alabama that mandatory life without parole sentences were unconstitutional for people under 18. I was re-sentenced in 2017 and subsequently released in 2018.
Proportionality and culpability are the foundation of any modern justice system. The consideration of those qualities are being denied to thousands of prisoners in Pennsylvania due to its mandatory life without parole sentencing schemes.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court found this to be flawed for felony murder, and more importantly to be flawed under Pennsylvania’s State Constitution, not the U.S.Constitution. For the first time, the state Supreme Court has extended a new right to be free from cruel punishment under its state constitutional protections.
That is a landmark victory, not just for incarcerated people but for all Pennsylvanians who believe that constitutions exist to expand freedoms, not restrict or confine them.
This was a case to celebrate.
However, now it is up to the state legislature to act, and act with deliberation and speed. One of the unjust outcomes of the “juvenile lifer” re-sentencings in Pennsylvania was the vastly disparate sentences handed down across the state’s counties.
In Philadelphia, District Attorney Larry Krasner’s Office assessed individual culpability, rehabilitation and parole suitability. Meanwhile, in other counties across the state, “juvenile lifers” were resentenced to life without parole or sentenced to minimum terms of 35, 40, and in some cases 50 years. Prosecutors in those counties continued to pursue heavy minimum sentences with ever-changing goal posts. In many cases, they rigidly adhered to 35-year minimum guidelines even when they didn’t have to.
We cannot repeat those mistakes.
To ensure we didn’t allow this to happen to people serving mandatory life without parole for felony murder, in 2024, Straight Ahead, the lobbying, legislative, and electoral arm of the Abolitionist Law Center, drafted House Bill 443, sponsored by House Judiciary Chairperson Tim Briggs.
HB 443 provides a remedy that is fair and just for all Pennsylvanians and broadly supported by key stakeholders, including the Philadelphia Defenders Association, Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM), the ACLU of Pennsylvania, and over a dozen other criminal justice organizations in the fight to end mass incarceration and death by incarceration and promote true public safety in Pennsylvania.
The bill would provide everyone convicted of felony murder an opportunity to see the parole board. HB 443 is not a pass out of prison for all, but rather allows the parole board to take into consideration the individual’s culpability and capacity for change. It sets a 25-year minimum sentence and a 50-year maximum; however, that sentence is in line with the national average of time served for felony murder.
The legislation must also be retroactive and apply to the over 1,000 people presently serving mandatory life without parole sentences for felony murder convictions.
Anything less would be a travesty of justice.
And any questions about public safety can be answered by looking at the recidivism rate of the “juvenile lifers” released since 2016. As of 2025, their recidivism rate is at 4%, according to Montclair University research, a remarkably low figure compared to the national average.
We are only now, 50 years later, undoing many of the draconian sentencing schemes that blossomed in the 1970s in the aftermath of the racially charged 1960s and the War on Drugs in the 1980-90s. Since then, these sentencing schemes have been found to disproportionately impact Black and working class communities.
In short, they are racist and classist.
Mandatory life without parole for felony murder, only introduced to Pennsylvania in 1974, is finally in the dustbin of our state’s history.
Now the Pennsylvania legislature has the power to move swiftly to rectify the unjust sentencing scheme that violates the constitutional rights of people convicted of felony murder and condemns them to die in prison.
PHILADELPHIA (April 23, 2026) —Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner joined with community and religious leaders Thursday to announce his support for legislation aimed at revising sentencing for second-degree murder convictions following the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s ruling that mandatory life sentences for felony murder is unconstitutional.
The Court’s ruling by on March 26, 2026, gave the PA General Assembly 120 days to act and provide a remedy for more than 1,100 people serving this unconstitutional sentence, including roughly 500 from Philadelphia. House Bill 443 would revise sentencing for second-degree murder (felony murder) by:
Eliminating the current requirement of mandatory life imprisonment without parole
Establishing structured maximum sentences and creating tiered sentencing ranges for younger defendants to reflect age at the time of the offense
And introducing parole eligibility after a defined minimum term, allowing individuals to be considered for release by the PA Parole Board rather than being categorically excluded
Please see more on this legislation here.
“The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s ruling gives the Legislature an opportunity to provide a remedy for those 1,100 Pennsylvanians currently serving an unconstitutional sentence. House Bill 443 would provide that remedy by giving the Parole Board the authority to determine whether individuals who have served at least 25 years deserve a second chance,” said District Attorney Larry Krasner. “People who have been incarcerated for decades following offenses that were committed while they were young are especially deserving of a second look, and HB 443 would give them that opportunity for fairness.”
“I grew up facing much adversity in my adolescent and early adult years,” said Bishop Michelle Simmons, founder and CEO of Why Not Prosper, Inc. “I faced abuse, legal problems, and substance use, and was later incarcerated. My story is not unique, but it is an important one to share because it shows that people can experience growth and change. House Bill 443 offers a way to give hundreds of incarcerated individuals that opportunity.”
“The PA Supreme Court ruling brought a measure of hope and redemption to over 1,100 people serving death by incarceration in Pennsylvania,” said Robert Saleem Holbrook, executive director of the Abolitionist Law Center and co-author of HB 433. “But lawmakers in Harrisburg must act to ensure that the door of opportunity is not unjustly closed on these individuals. The time to act to ensure Pennsylvanians’ constitutional rights is now.”
“As someone who has spent decades working with young people in the carceral system, I see firsthand their ability to transform into mentors, teachers and leaders,” said Reverend Dr. Damone Jones. “The Legislature still has 92 days left to provide a fair and just remedy and we hope that they will take advantage by passing HB 443.”
DA Krasner added: “This bill helps move our justice system toward one that prioritizes safety, fairness, and freedom, rather than outcomes that perpetuate mass incarceration. Allowing individuals to return home after serving substantial time, when appropriate, reduces the high cost of incarceration and ultimately benefits taxpayers, while still achieving public safety.”
The bills would give incarcerated people the chance at release after 25 years.
Philadelphia’s top prosecutor on Thursday accused state lawmakers of effectively defying the courts, as a window narrows for the legislature to respond to a landmark ruling that struck down mandatory life sentences for second-degree murder convictions.
At a news conference, District Attorney Larry Krasner said lawmakers’ failure so far to act on proposed parole legislation amounted to “lawbreaking,” warning that time was running short to repair what he called an unconstitutional sentencing scheme.
His remarks came 28 days after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that mandatory life sentences for second-degree murder are unconstitutional.
The court gave lawmakers 120 days to craft a framework to address its ruling and apply it to those serving such sentences.
Krasner said legislators were not moving quickly enough.
“What we have now is an opportunity for our legislature — the people we have elected to work for us — to go from being lawbreakers to lawmakers," Krasner said. “We have 92 days left, and we need to move ahead.”
Two bills — House Bill 443, introduced by Rep. Tim Briggs, a Democrat from Montgomery County, and Senate Bill 387, introduced by Sen. Sharif Street, a Philadelphia Democrat — would allow people convicted of so-called felony murder to become eligible for parole after 25 years.
Krasner’s remarks focused on House Bill 443, which had been scheduled for a vote on April 9 before Briggs postponed consideration, saying he would withdraw the measure and consult with attorneys and advocates in hopes of producing legislation “we can all be proud of.”
In a statement, Briggs said he had worked with multiple stakeholders, including Krasner, to craft the bill, which he called “a fair and just solution to this problem.”
But, he said the measure seemed destined to stall in the Republican-controlled Senate, so lawmakers had more work to do to reach consensus
Of the roughly 1,100 people serving life sentences for second-degree murder across Pennsylvania, more than 500 were convicted in Philadelphia, according to Krasner’s office — a concentration that would give the office an outsized role in any future parole process. About 70% of those people could become eligible for parole consideration if either bill is enacted, Krasner said.
He emphasized that his office would play a central role in reviewing cases before any hearings, promising what he described as a rigorous, individualized assessment.“We will engage in an extremely detailed review of these cases,” he said. “We want our voice to be heard.”
Under the current system, he argued, such scrutiny was largely absent. “It’s the kind of hearing that should have happened originally,” he said. “But we had an illegal law that said, ‘There’s only one sentence you can give.’ So why ask questions? Why find out about the individual?”
Krasner also pushed back on criticism that his position aligned more closely with defense advocates than with prosecutors.
“A part of my job is to seek justice,” he said. “Part of my job is to uphold the Constitution, and this law was strictly unconstitutional.”He was joined by several criminal justice advocates, including Saleem Holbrook, executive director of the Abolitionist Law Center, and John Pace, associate director of reentry and engagement at the Youth Sentencing and Re-entry Project. Both men had once been sentenced to life in prison and were later released after U.S. Supreme Court rulings barred mandatory life sentences for juveniles and made those decisions retroactive.
Holbrook stressed that the hundreds of men and women incarcerated under the former law were waiting for an opportunity to be released and show they could contribute meaningfully to their communities.
“I say opportunity,” Holbrook said, “because that’s what it is: They’re going to have to earn their release. They’re not just going to be taken in front of the parole board and let go.”
But, he added, “the clock is ticking.”
We are deeply disappointed that on Thursday, April 9, Democratic leadership in the PA House postponed a vote to move vital legislation, House Bill 443, out of the Pennsylvania House Judiciary Committee and to a full floor vote. HB 443, which has 43 cosponsors, would abolish the sentence of life without parole – better known as death by incarceration – for second degree murder.
On March 26, 2026, the PA Supreme Court ruled that mandatory life without parole for second degree murder is unconstitutional. The ruling gave the PA General Assembly 120 days to act and provide a remedy for more than 1,000 people serving this unconstitutional sentence. With last week’s delay, there are now fewer than 102 days to create this remedy. Unnecessary delays in seeking a remedy are dangerous as they can derail the legislative process.
HB 443 provides a remedy that is fair and just for all Pennsylvanians. For that reason, it is broadly supported by key stakeholders in the fight to end mass incarceration and death by incarceration and promote true public safety in Pennsylvania, including many leaders from communities most impacted by mass incarceration and gun violence.
Thousands of Pennsylvanians are serving an unconstitutional sentence right now on our watch. While we are reasonably confident that a future court case will lead to mass resentencings, inaction by the PA General Assembly will likely leave life without parole on the table as an option in those resentencings. This could lead to disparate outcomes in counties across PA where people in counties with extremely punitive prosecutors and courts could be re-condemned to die in prison with no possibility of a second look and at great cost to Pennsylvania taxpayers. At the same time, nearly half of these resentencings would take place in Philadelphia. Any legislation that passes must ensure that Philadelphians with these unconstitutional sentences are not placed in a worse position than they would face at resentencing.
The ball is in the court of those in power in the PA General Assembly as well as the Governor. They must do the right thing and pass legislation that:
The time to act to ensure Pennsylvanians’ constitutional rights is now.
Signed,
Abolitionist Law Center
ACLU of Pennsylvania
Amistad Law Project
Defender Association of Philadelphia
Dream.Org
Pennsylvania Innocence Project
Public Defender Association of Pennsylvania
Straight Ahead
Youth Sentencing and Reentry Project
Pa. Supreme Court ruling is likely to kick off what could be the largest resentencing effort in the commonwealth’s history.
Last month, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court gave lawmakers 120 days to find a legislative solution after ruling mandatory life sentences for second degree murder charges are unconstitutional under the state’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments.
The ruling is likely to kick off what could be the largest resentencing effort the commonwealth has ever undertaken, though the timeline will depend on decisions made by lawmakers.
In Pennsylvania, someone can be charged with second-degree murder even if prosecutors can’t prove they intended to cause another person’s death. In some cases, a person can be charged without actually killing someone. Prosecutors just need to prove someone died while the person charged committed a felony. That charge comes with a mandatory life sentence without parole, which the state’s high court ruled unconstitutional last month.
Last Thursday, lawmakers on the state House Judiciary Committee were set to vote on a bill that would have addressed the problem by making those serving such sentences eligible for parole after 25 years, and creating a 50-year maximum sentence for future second degree murder charges.
But as the panel’s meeting started, its chairman, Rep. Tim Briggs (D-Montgomery), announced he would be pulling the bill from consideration.
“These people have been serving long, unconstitutional sentences, and I will not put them in a worse position than what I believe the Supreme Court would order for them,” Briggs said about those currently serving life sentences without parole on second degree murder charges. “I am confident that as long as we all work together, we will come up with a bill we can all be proud of.”
Briggs said that he and other lawmakers on the committee were seeking input from people and organizations like public defenders, district attorneys and victims advocates.
But while some groups had issues with components of the proposal, the move rankled criminal justice advocates who have long sought to eliminate mandatory life sentences for those convicted of felony murder.
“We are deeply disappointed that on Thursday, April 9, Democratic leadership in the Pa. House postponed a vote to move vital legislation, House Bill 443, out of the Pennsylvania House Judiciary Committee and to a full floor vote,” said a joint statement issued Monday. It came from Straight Ahead, the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, the Amistad Law Project, the Defender Association of Philadelphia, Dream.org, the Public Defender Association of Pennsylvania and the Youth Sentencing and Reentry Project — all organizations that advocate for the rights of incarcerated people.
“HB 443 provides a remedy that is fair and just for all Pennsylvanians,” the statement added. “For that reason, it is broadly supported by key stakeholders in the fight to end mass incarceration and death by incarceration and promote true public safety in Pennsylvania.”
Speaking to reporters after last week’s committee meeting, Briggs and Republican Judiciary Committee Minority Chair Rep. Rob Kauffman (R-Franklin) made clear there was still a way to go to gain consensus among lawmakers in both parties.
While the state House is narrowly controlled by Democrats, Republicans hold a 27-23 majority in the Senate.
“We’re struggling with how to deal with this,” Kauffman said. “We were thrown this curveball by the Pa. Supreme Court two weeks ago, and I think that’s why Chairman Briggs was wise in stepping back and saying lets have a conversation.”
While the House bill, sponsored solely by Democrats, would create a 50-year maximum sentence for felony murder, a bipartisan bill in the state Senate would implement a 25-year minimum, and still allow for life sentences in some cases.
That measure has yet to go before a Senate committee, but Kauffman told the Capital-Star that he would prefer a bill that allows maximum flexibility for judges and still implement “extraordinarily serious, long-term punishment,” in some circumstances.
But some advocates, including one named by Briggs as a person he wanted input from, Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner, said he would prefer a bill that would wholly eliminate life sentences without parole for felony murder.
“We’re talking $60,000 a year, per person, for unnecessary years of incarceration,” Krasner told the Capital-Star. “There are a lot of unnecessary years of incarceration that have already been served and will be served going forward if the legislature doesn’t act within this 120 days … And as [detainees] get older, it can cost a hell of a lot more than $60,000 a year. It can cost in medical and other expenses up to $200,000 a year.”
While Krasner’s office sent a letter to the Judiciary Committee requesting amendments to the bill — lowering the penalty for second degree murder from a proposed 25- to 50-year sentence to a 15- to 30-year one — he said he would have preferred if the panel moved it along.
“Strategically, usually what you want to do when you have a bill that is good is you want to get it out of committee and get it on the floor. Then, there will be amendments,” he said.
Sean Damon, the director of strategic partnerships at Straight Ahead, the advocacy arm of the nonprofit Abolitionist Law Center, said he was also disappointed by the decision to pull the bill, and cited the potential impact on those serving life sentences if the legislature doesn’t act.
“Right now, there’s a lot of urgency,” he said. “There’s over 1,000 people who are serving unconstitutional sentences on our watch. So while we do really need to make sure that we get this right, there is really a need to move with urgency.”
If the legislature doesn’t act, decisions will effectively be moved back to the courts. That would likely result in resentencing for everyone currently serving a mandatory life sentence on a second-degree murder charge. That would take far longer than allowing them to go through the parole board — which is what both the House and Senate felony murder bills would currently implement.
Damon pointed to the aftermath of a 2016 ruling in a case called Commonwealth v. Batts, which found life sentences for juveniles unconstitutional.
When the legislature did not act to address what should happen to people who had been given life sentences as minors, it kicked off what was the largest resentencing effort in Pennsylvania history. And some people serving life sentences given as minors then have still not had their day in court.
Moreover, Damon said that outcomes in those hearings varied greatly by jurisdiction, with judges and prosecutors in some parts of the commonwealth more inclined to uphold stricter sentences, and others being more lenient.
It’s something lawmakers could address with legislation.
“If it is handled by the courts, it’s going to lead to very disparate outcomes in counties across Pennsylvania,” Damon said. “If you look to the experience of juvenile lifers, in Philadelphia, people got very reasonable sentencing offers for the most part, and a lot of people returned home to our communities. If you look at the outcome of those resentencing in counties across Pennsylvania, counties with more severe prosecutors and harsher judiciaries resentenced people to life without parole in some cases, or resentenced people to sentences like 50 to life.”
Damon also said the House bill, which would implement a 25 to 50-year sentence for felony murder, would bring Pennsylvania in line with neighboring states.
Sara Jacobson, the executive director of the Public Defenders Association of Pennsylvania, agreed that, as it stands, sending convicts through the parole board would allow for more people to potentially receive parole more quickly.
“That can happen, I think,more quickly and do the most good the fastest,” she said.
But she added that, if lawmakers do end up sending convicts through the courts, it would have to come with funding for the public defenders and the judiciary.
“It will take a lot of resources for public defender offices to be able and ready to provide the mitigation help that folks will need,” she said. “Only 20 Public defender offices in Pennsylvania out of the 67 counties — only 20 have social service offices to do any kind of mitigation work.”
But Briggs, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said he’s not opposed to kicking the issue back to the courts if lawmakers can’t find common ground. That puts him at odds with a number of the state’s leading criminal justice advocacy organizations.
“There has to be some real honest conversation about what 120 days looks like,” he said. “If we get a bill that is a good outcome, good for justice and good for the victims and good for getting a path for folks to be released, I’d support that. But if we end up with a bill that doesn’t do that or takes a step backward, then I’m going to put my trust in the courts to figure it out.”Pa. Supreme Court ruling is likely to kick off what could be the largest resentencing effort in the commonwealth’s history.
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.