### Jailhouse Snitch’s Secret Deal Revives Child Rapist’s Appeal
Pennsylvania’s Superior Court has overturned the dismissal of a convicted child sex offender’s late appeal, ruling his petition timely after uncovering hidden evidence of a prosecutor’s sweetheart deal with a key jailhouse informant. Samuel Frank Marrero-Nardo Sr., serving up to 17 years for assaults on two young girls in 2004-2005, gets another shot after courts found he acted diligently in discovering the Brady violation. The case now heads back for a full hearing on whether the nondisclosure tainted his 2017 conviction.
The saga began when Marrero-Nardo was jailed for sexually assaulting two minors, with victims testifying to the abuse and his own son taking the stand. But the prosecution’s hammer was Luis Figueroa, a fellow inmate who claimed Marrero-Nardo confessed to the crimes—including regular sex with the older girl and molesting the younger one—and plotting to blame his son. Figueroa, facing his own theft and drug charges, swore under oath at trial that no promises were made for his testimony, though he admitted hoping for leniency like rehab over prison. Defense lawyers grilled him on his motives, and the jury convicted anyway, sentencing Marrero-Nardo to nearly eight years minimum.
Years later, in a twist straight out of a legal thriller, Marrero-Nardo’s new counsel dug up 2017 transcripts from Figueroa’s own plea hearings—handled by the same prosecutor. They revealed a plea deal for global probation on both cases, with the ADA boasting Figueroa’s testimony against Marrero-Nardo “evolved into this plea offer” because it filled gaps in the victims’ faded memories. Figueroa had testified just days earlier, falsely claiming no guarantees, while the Commonwealth echoed in closings that “no promises were made.” Marrero-Nardo filed a serial PCRA petition in 2023, arguing this undisclosed deal was a Brady violation—suppressed impeaching evidence that prosecutors had a duty to reveal.
The lower court tossed it as untimely under PCRA’s strict one-year limit, demanding “due diligence.” But the Superior Court invoked its own precedent in *Commonwealth v. Davis*: no defendant must scour unrelated case transcripts assuming witnesses and prosecutors are lying. “Due diligence does not require a defendant to make such unreasonable assumptions,” the panel ruled, finding Marrero-Nardo’s 2023 discovery met both the newly discovered facts and governmental interference exceptions. They rejected his after-discovered evidence claim—purely for impeaching Figueroa—but remanded for fact-finding on Brady’s core: Did the deal exist pre-trial? Was it material enough to flip the verdict, given other evidence like incriminating Facebook messages to a victim?
This reversal underscores Brady’s bite: prosecutors can’t hide deals that let “snitches” lie about bias. With strong victim testimony and digital proof, Marrero-Nardo’s odds remain long—but the court just cracked the door for Lebanon County to probe if justice was truly served.