### Jailhouse Snitch’s Secret Deal Revives Child Rapist’s Appeal
Pennsylvania’s Superior Court has overturned the dismissal of a convicted child sex abuser’s late appeal, ruling his petition timely after uncovering evidence of a hidden plea deal with a key prosecution witness. Samuel Frank Marrero-Nardo Sr., serving up to 17 years for assaults on two young girls in 2004-2005, claims prosecutors violated his rights by concealing the deal. The court remanded for a full hearing on whether this “Brady” violation warrants a new trial.
The case ignited in 2017 when Marrero-Nardo was convicted based on victim testimonies, his own incriminating Facebook messages admitting nervousness about sex with a minor, and explosive jailhouse testimony from inmate Luis Figueroa. Figueroa claimed Marrero-Nardo confessed to regular sex with the older girl and molesting the younger one, even plotting to blame his son. Defense lawyers grilled Figueroa on his pending theft and drug charges, his release from jail right after reporting the confession, and his hopes for rehab over prison—but Figueroa swore under oath no promises were made, and prosecutors echoed in closing that “no promises were made.”
Marrero-Nardo’s direct appeal and first PCRA bid failed, with courts noting strong evidence beyond Figueroa and solid cross-examination on his bias. But in 2023, new counsel dug up transcripts from Figueroa’s May 2017 plea hearing—prosecuted by the same DA’s office. They revealed a sweetheart deal: probation on one case, a felony-downgraded misdemeanor with global probation on the other, explicitly tied to Figueroa’s “helpful” testimony against Marrero-Nardo. Figueroa’s lawyer announced the pleas; the ADA confirmed the deal “evolved” post-testimony. This directly contradicted trial claims of no leniency.
The PCRA court tossed Marrero-Nardo’s serial petition as untimely under Pennsylvania’s strict one-year limit, demanding “due diligence” to uncover facts earlier. The Superior Court disagreed, citing its 2014 Davis precedent: defendants aren’t obligated to hunt transcripts in unrelated cases, assuming witnesses and prosecutors are lying. Figueroa’s deal was a “newly discovered fact,” making the petition viable—no one could reasonably expect perjury from the state.
On merits, the court rejected an “after-discovered evidence” claim, as the deal went only to impeaching Figueroa, not a freestanding exonerator. But the potential Brady violation—suppressing impeachment evidence material enough to possibly flip the verdict—needs factual airing. Was the deal truly hidden? Did it prejudice the outcome amid other proof? Back to the trial court for answers, breathing life into a case dogged by snitch credibility shadows.