James Pitts
A Philadelphia judge found in 2017 that James Pitts had a history of coercing witnesses and vacated a murder conviction on that basis. The District Attorney's Office placed him on its do-not-call list in 2018, he left the department, and in 2024 a Philadelphia jury convicted him of perjury and obstruction. The Superior Court has sent Pitts cases back for hearings but has not yet granted relief on a pattern-and-practice claim on the merits.
By John A. Julian, Esq. Updated October 1, 2026. Every statement is drawn from the court document cited beside it.
- PositionFormer detective, Philadelphia Police Department Homicide Unit; described in petitions as partnered with Detective Omar (also spelled Ohmarr) Jenkins
- Status of recordConvicted of perjury and obstruction in 2024.
- Court record6 documented findings or disclosures; 10 PCRA-related decisions summarized below
What the courts have found or the Commonwealth has disclosed
In Commonwealth v. Dwayne Thorpe, CP-51-CR-0011433-2008, Judge M. Teresa Sarmina, "after conducting a four-day evidentiary hearing, vacated Mr. Thorpe's murder conviction based on her finding that Detective Pitts had a history of coercing witnesses." The Superior Court has recounted a petitioner's description of Thorpe as finding that Pitts and Jenkins "utilized an unconstitutional 'pattern and practice' of, among other things, fabricating statements from suspects and witnesses," and has noted another petitioner's reliance on cases in which, he asserted, the Commonwealth stipulated that Homicide Division detectives engaged in aspects of that pattern.
Source: Commonwealth v. Shawn Williams, No. 1946 EDA 2020 (Pa. Super. Jan. 18, 2022); Commonwealth v. Mumin, No. 3130 EDA 2019 (Pa. Super. Mar. 26, 2021); Commonwealth v. Anthony Williams, No. 1264 EDA 2022 (Pa. Super. June 12, 2023)
In March 2018 the District Attorney's Office disclosed that Pitts had been placed on a "Do Not Call" list identifying officers the Commonwealth would not call at trial because of past investigatory misconduct. Pitts was arrested on criminal charges in March 2022.
Source: Commonwealth v. Anthony Williams, No. 1264 EDA 2022 (Pa. Super. June 12, 2023), describing the appellant's showing; arrest date from the District Attorney's July 16, 2024 and February 2025 releases
One petitioner alleged that Pitts had been "terminated for making false testimony and falsifying evidence," and his brief asserted that Pitts was facing criminal charges including perjury.
Source: Commonwealth v. Feliciano, No. 3061 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Dec. 9, 2024), describing the petitioner's allegations
In July 2024 a Philadelphia jury convicted Pitts of perjury and obstructing the administration of law.
Source: Commonwealth v. Spivey, No. 2290 EDA 2025 (Pa. Super. June 18, 2026); Philadelphia District Attorney's Office release, July 16, 2024
In April 2016 a civil jury found Pitts and Detective George Pirrone liable for manufacturing evidence against a criminal defendant. That verdict was later reversed by the Commonwealth Court, which directed judgment for the detectives while acknowledging "serious holes and inconsistencies in the Police Department's investigation." News coverage of Pitts's interrogation tactics dates to November 2013.
Source: Commonwealth v. Hill, 202 A.3d 792 (Pa. Super. 2019), citing Alleyne v. Pirrone, 180 A.3d 524 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018)
In India Spellman's case, the Commonwealth agreed that her conviction should be overturned. On February 9, 2023, the PCRA court ruled that her trial was unconstitutional because of misconduct by the prosecution and by Pitts, ordered a new trial, and the Commonwealth dismissed all charges the same day.
Source: Spellman v. Pitts, Nos. 21-1334 and 23-3342 (E.D. Pa. May 9, 2024)
PCRA cases involving James Pitts
Commonwealth v. Dwayne Thorpe
Relief. Murder conviction vacated after a four-day hearing on Pitts's history of coercing witnesses. No Superior Court opinion reviewing the grant has been located.
Timeliness. Not available from the appellate record.
Commonwealth v. India Spellman
Relief. Trial found unconstitutional because of prosecutorial misconduct and Pitts's conduct; new trial ordered by agreement; charges dismissed.
Timeliness. Not stated in the available opinion.
Commonwealth v. Shawn Williams
Remanded. Dismissal of an untimely first petition vacated and sent back for an evidentiary hearing on when the petitioner learned of the Thorpe findings and whether he was diligent; the Commonwealth did not oppose remand. The confession was allegedly coerced by Pitts.
Timeliness. The petitioner pointed to the November 2017 Thorpe decision as the new fact; the court faulted the PCRA court for dismissing without a hearing rather than deciding the date.
Commonwealth v. Anthony Williams
Remanded in part. Reversed for a hearing on claims that the Homicide Division and Pitts engaged in a pattern and practice of unconstitutional interrogations and that the Commonwealth withheld Pitts's misconduct, under both the newly-discovered-fact and governmental-interference exceptions.
Timeliness. The record was "devoid of facts" on when the petitioner learned of the Thorpe findings and the Commonwealth's stipulations; the PCRA court must decide admissibility, relevance, and diligence on remand.
Commonwealth v. Daniel Soler
Denied on the merits; Pitts interviewed only the co-defendant, and the petitioner's own confession and video made a different verdict unlikely.
Timeliness. The PCRA court found the newly-discovered-fact exception satisfied by a March 4, 2022 Inquirer article on Pitts's pattern of coercion, with the petition filed August 11, 2022; the Commonwealth did not contest that finding.
Commonwealth v. Shawn Hill
Second petition dismissed as untimely.
Timeliness. The January 2013 and January 2015 reports about Dove were public more than a year before Hill's January 2016 first petition; the April 2016 civil verdict against Pitts came while that petition was pending, and Hill raised all of these allegations in the first petition.
Commonwealth v. Derrick Spivey
Dismissed as untimely.
Timeliness. Pitts's 2024 conviction "is not a newly discovered fact. It is, at most, a newly-uncovered source that supports a previously known fact"; the petitioner knew of the alleged assault of a witness at his 2009 preliminary hearing.
Commonwealth v. Allen Daniely
Denied. Pitts did not interview the relevant witness, and no misconduct was alleged in the petitioner's own interview.
Timeliness. The petition was filed more than a year after counsel was retained and nearly two years after the witness affidavit.
Commonwealth v. Khaleef Mumin
Denied. "There is no evidence that Detective Pitts was involved in the investigation in any respect"; Jenkins interviewed the recanting witness, but relief was denied.
Timeliness. Not addressed.
Commonwealth v. Khalil Pugh
Timely first petition denied. Claims that plea counsel was ineffective for not pursuing a Pitts-coercion defense were rejected as previously litigated in the motion to withdraw the plea.
Timeliness. Not at issue.
When the misconduct became public: the dates that control the deadline
Courts have used, in order: November 2013 (news coverage of interrogation tactics, an exhibit noted in Hill); April 2016 (civil verdict, which Hill raised during his first petition); November 2017 (the Thorpe ruling, Shawn Williams); March 2018 (do-not-call disclosure, as the petitioner described it in Anthony Williams; the panel remanded to determine when he learned of it); March 4, 2022 (Inquirer report on his pattern of coercion, accepted as a trigger by the PCRA court in Soler); 2024 (conviction, held to be a new source rather than a new fact in Spivey).
What this means for a petition. The Pitts litigation is unfinished. The Superior Court has twice sent cases back for hearings on when a petitioner could have learned of the Thorpe findings, and the answer to that question will decide many petitions. What is settled is the other half: a petitioner who knew at the preliminary hearing or trial that a witness's identification or his own statement was coerced cannot use Pitts's later conviction to reopen the case, and a petition must show Pitts interviewed the petitioner or a material witness. The strongest Pitts petitions pair a case-specific coercion claim with the Thorpe findings and the Commonwealth's own stipulations, and document precisely when the petitioner learned of them.
Was this officer involved in a case you know? The first step is to determine whether the case has already been vacated and, if not, what date the courts will treat as the start of the one-year clock. Request a case review or call (215) 568-0607.
This page reports what courts have found, what parties have stipulated, and what the Commonwealth has disclosed, as stated in the cited opinions. Allegations are identified as allegations. It is general information, not legal advice, and is not a statement about any officer beyond what the cited documents say.