SUNBURY - Kazimir Craig Grohowski, a former Northumberland County Prison guard convicted by a jury of felony drug-related charges in 2006, has been acquitted of all offenses due to ineffective counsel at his trial and a prejudicial remark by the prosecuting attorney during his closing argument in the case.
Northumberland County President Judge Robert B. Sacavage issued an order Thursday granting Grohowski's motion for a judgment of acquittal.
Sacavage's ruling came three months after he heard arguments by defense attorney Edward E. Kopko, of Ithaca, N.Y., and Deputy Attorney General David Gorman regarding a post-sentence motion filed by Kopko requesting the judge to acquit his client or grant a new trial.
The judge had the option of overturning Grohowski's 2006 conviction, upholding the conviction or granting him a new trial.
Sacavage's order filed with the county prothonotary's office states, "The court finds that trial counsel (Attorney Richard Feudale) was ineffective by failing to object or make a request for either a curative instruction or a new trial during the commonwealth's closing argument when the prosecutor (Gorman)
utilized language asking the jury to consider 'sending that message.'"
Sacavage ruled the 39-year-old Grohowski, of Mount Carmel, was prejudiced by the "sending that message" remark and found that the evidence supporting the guilty verdict was insufficient.
The judge denied the commonwealth's motion to deny Kopko's post-sentence motion.
When contacted for comment Tuesday night about his client's acquittal, Kopko stated, "This case from the very beginning has been a miscarriage of justice. Mr. Grohowski was initially represented by Attorney Richard Feudale, who was ineffective and failed to properly protect his client from an overzealous and inept prosecutor (Gorman) from the attorney general's office. If the case had properly been defended, Mr. Grohowski would have been acquitted years ago due to a total failure by the prosecutor to present sufficient evidence."
Kopko added, "The prosecutor's failure was compounded by his attempt to make up for a lack of evidence by tainting the jury with inappropriate comments about illegal behavior that had nothing to do with Mr. Grohowski.
"We are fortunate to have courageous judges like Judge Sacavage, who are willing to follow the law and acquit an innocent man like Mr. Grohowski."
Kopko said he expects the commonwealth to appeal Sacavage's ruling to the state Superior Court.
Grohowski, who was informed of his acquittal by Kopko on Tuesday night, said, "I feel like I just had a giant weight lifted off me. I want to thank Mr. Kopko for all his hard work and tireless efforts. I also want to thank God, and Judge Sacavage for recognizing the problems that existed at my trial and allowing me to have my day in court. I want to thank everyone who has been there for me through this whole ordeal, especially my wife, Corinne, and family."
In his five-page opinion on the case, Sacavage pointed out that Gorman was prejudicial during his closing argument to the jury in which he urged them to send a message for change at the prison.
The judge said the Supreme Court in 1997 condemned closing arguments that urge the jury to "send a message" to the community with their verdict.
Evidence only
Sacavage said a jury's determination must be based solely on the evidence and not a prosecutor's emotional appeal or crusading incitation to make a statement to the judicial system or to convince the jury that a certain verdict is necessary as a form of retribution for the ills inflicted on society by a certain class of people.
He stated, "Although the commonwealth attempts to make a plausible argument against a finding of prejudicial effect, in the end, the court finds that, particularly in light of remarks made to the media by a juror the day of the verdict specifically referencing the impact of the language employed by the prosecutor during closing remarks, the prejudicial effect of the language on the outcome of the defendant's proceedings cannot be ignored. It is clear that the commonwealth appealed to sentiment rather than relying on the facts of the case and the evidence presented. The commonwealth crossed the line by sending a message to the community. While the commonwealth attempted to cure the misstatement, the damage was already done."
Sacavage also said in his opinion that there was no physical evidence presented by the commonwealth during the trial linking Grohowski to the crimes. He said the commonwealth relied heavily on circumstantial evidence presented in the testimony of three inmates housed at the prison at the time of the alleged incidents. The judge said the inmates' testimony amounted to little more than vague assertions that they had received drugs from the defendant.
"There was no physical evidence, either in the form of substances purported to be the drugs received, or any other nature," Sacavage said. "The commonwealth in fact presented nothing to establish that the defendant had delivered, transmitted or furnished any substance to the witnesses. The evidence here is so weak and inconclusive that a jury of reasonable persons would not have been satisfied as to the accused's guilt."
Grohowski has been free on $50,000 bail awaiting the outcome of his case that started in 2004 when he and six other county correctional officers were charged in a grand jury investigation involving alleged abuse at the archaic jail.
At a March 22 legal proceeding before Sacavage, Kopko stated, "My client was deprived of a fair trial. There was no evidence presented during the trial identifying scheduled drugs. The commonwealth didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt any of the charges against Mr. Grohowski."
Kopko also argued that his client was "ineffectively represented" by his former trial defense attorney, Richard Feudale, of Mount Carmel, and that Gorman, who prosecuted the case, committed prosecutorial misconduct throughout the trial.
"My client has been hounded, shadowed and humiliated by this case since 2004," Kopko said. "He is an innocent man who was wrongfully convicted."
Gorman requested the judge to dismiss Kopko's post-sentence motion because it wasn't filed within 150 days of Grohowski's sentencing. But Sacavage, who initially didn't think the legal brief involving the post-sentence motion was filed by Kopko by the deadline, agreed to hear Kopko's motion after learning that the attorney had filed the motion on Dec. 4, 2009.
Gorman argued that a statement made by a juror after the trial about "wanting to send a message" had no bearing on the jury's verdict.
He also defended Feudale by pointing out that he filed pre-trial motions in the case and attacked the creditability of various witnesses at the trial, including various inmates.
'Extraordinary relief'
In October 2009, Grohowski was sentenced by Sacavage to two to four years in a state correctional institution on three counts of delivery of contraband - cocaine, methamphetamine and marijuana - to an inmate at the jail, where he was employed as a correctional officer.
Grohowski was found guilty of the charges during a jury trial in September 2006, but hasn't spent any time in jail since his conviction because of various appeals filed in the case. He was found not guilty during the trial of another felony offense - aggravated assault against an inmate.
Following his conviction and prior to being sentenced, Grohowski, through Kopko, filed a motion for a new trial, citing ineffective counsel by Feudale.
In August 2007, Sacavage granted Grohowski a new trial, citing a need for "extraordinary relief," because Gorman made an improper argument to jurors when he asked them to "send a message" about alleged abuse of power at the prison by convicting Grohowski.
The judge also said Feudale provided ineffective counsel by not objecting to Gorman's remarks and requesting a mistrial.
Sacavage's decision to grant a new trial was appealed by the commonwealth to the state Superior Court, which in the summer of 2009 ruled in a 3-2 decision that extraordinary relief was not justified because the appeals process shouldn't occur until after sentencing.
Before being sentenced in 2009, Grohowski asked Sacavage to allow him to remain free on bail pending the appeal so he could continue to take care of his kids. The judge granted the request, noting that Grohowski, who works in construction, had appeared for every court hearing during the course of the case.
Grohowski was among seven current or former county prison guards charged on April 14, 2004, as the result of a two-year grand jury investigation into offenses allegedly committed between 2000 and 2002 at the prison. Charges against one of the other guards were withdrawn. Another guard was acquitted of drug charges during a 2005 trial and allowed to return to work at the prison. The other four guards entered guilty pleas and received various sentences, but avoided spending time in prison.