Pa. Commonwealth Court releases opinion calling impeachment articles against DA Larry Krasner legally insufficient

Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court said Thursday that the state House’s decision to impeach Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner appeared largely based on disagreements about how he was running his office and said that was “not enough to create a constitutionally sound basis for impeaching and removing” the city’s top prosecutor.

In a majority opinion released Thursday afternoon, Commonwealth Court Judge Ellen Ceisler added that other allegations of wrongdoing approved by the Republican-controlled House also did not meet the required legal standard of “misbehavior in office” — either because the accusations lacked specificity or were grounds for the courts, not the legislature, to assess.

“None of the Amended Articles viably allege that [Krasner] has acted in a manner that constitutes any ‘misbehavior in office,’” Ceisler wrote.

The release of the opinion came a day after the state Senate voted to indefinitely postpone Krasner’s impeachment trial, which had been scheduled to begin Jan. 18. The opinion added some detail to an order the court had issued last month declaring the articles of impeachment against Krasner legally insufficient. That order caused the Senate to put its trial of Krasner on hold.

» READ MORE: DA Larry Krasner’s impeachment trial gets indefinitely postponed by the Pa. Senate

Still, much about the unpredictable impeachment drive remained unclear Thursday, including when — or whether — Republicans might appeal the court’s ruling, and how or if that might affect the timing of a possible trial.

Erica Clayton Wright, spokesperson for Senate Republicans, said: ”We are reviewing the opinion and will provide an appropriate response once we have had time to evaluate.”

Krasner, who has repeatedly denounced the impeachment effort as a political stunt, said at an unrelated news conference: “Obviously it is encouraging to see that the same things we have been saying since the very beginning, of what we described as an illegal process, are being confirmed and verified.”

Adding to the confusion was an unusual twist: Commonwealth Court Judge Michael H. Wojcik — who signed on to last month’s majority order — wrote in a concurring opinion Thursday that he had since come to believe some of the impeachment articles shouldn’t actually be ruled on by the court. “Upon further reflection,” he wrote, four of the seven articles of impeachment filed against Krasner “must ultimately be resolved by the General Assembly,” and not deemed legally invalid by him or his colleagues.

The potential impact of Wojcik’s change of heart was not immediately clear.

State Rep. Craig Williams, a Chester County Republican serving as one of the impeachment managers, said he believed the fact that Wojcik’s opinion partially conflicts with the order is “inviting relief on appeal,” and that legislative Republicans are likely to take the case to the state Supreme Court.

Krasner, a Democrat, was impeached by the GOP-led House last fall for what members called his failure to address the city’s gun violence crisis, his obstruction of a legislative committee, and his office’s performance in several court cases.

» READ MORE: What exactly is DA Larry Krasner being charged with? We explain each impeachment article.

He denied each of the accusations and sued in Commonwealth Court challenging the validity of the effort to oust him. Last month, the court sided with Krasner on the heart of his challenge, declaring the articles of impeachment legally insufficient.

In her opinion released Thursday, Ceisler provided different reasons that each of the seven articles should not stand. In one example, she said the broadest set of accusations approved by the House — that Krasner has implemented progressive policies and caused the city’s crime rate to spike — was “not supported by allegations that those determinations were the product of an improper or corrupt motive.”

She also said that several other articles, which alleged misbehavior by Krasner or his office in specific court cases, should be weighed by the courts for potential discipline, not the legislature.

And she said accusations that Krasner’s office had broken the law by mistreating victims had failed “to identify any specific examples of such behavior.”

In a dissenting opinion, Commonwealth Court Judge Patricia A. McCullough said she did not believe the court should insert itself into a legislative process that remained ongoing.

“Whatever review we may conduct of the Senate’s determination on the Amended Articles, we ought not conduct it now,” she wrote, adding that the decision to do so had “hurriedly and needlessly plunged this Court into a wash of ... political questions over which we currently have no decision-making authority.”

Staff writer Rodrigo Torrejón contributed to this article.