Commonwealth v. Freeman, 2026 Pa. Super. LEXIS 9 (Pa. Super Ct. 2026)

The Pennsylvania Superior Court vacated a sentence based on an objective appearance of bias where a former prosecutor against the co-defendant is now presiding as a judge over a related post conviction relief petition. The court stated in relevant part:

“In reaching our conclusion, we emphasize that our standard of review is not whether Judge Reichley is subjectively capable of being impartial. See Druce, supra. Rather, our standard of review is an objective one of whether a reasonable person would conclude that an appearance of bias exists. See id.; see also Williams, supra. The holding in Williams makes it clear in this case that if a jurist has previously represented the Commonwealth in a case against a defendant, or even that of a co-defendant in the same case, he or she must recuse, as such prior representation creates an objective appearance of bias, which is impermissible. Accordingly, we vacate the Brothers’ judgments of sentence, vacate Judge Reichley’s order denying the joint motion for recusal, and remand for the appointment of another jurist who will preside over the Brothers’ new resentencing proceeding.”