Frank Jastrzembski and Manuel Santiago
Frank Jastrzembski and Manuel Santiago investigated the cases of Anthony Wright and James Dennis, both later set aside, and were named in 2021 reporting on the Homicide Division. In the decisions reviewed, no Pennsylvania court has made a finding of misconduct against either detective, and the Superior Court has rejected the PCRA petitions built on their names. Their pages are here because petitioners keep asking, and the answers so far have all been no.
By John A. Julian, Esq. Updated October 1, 2026. Every statement is drawn from the court document cited beside it.
- PositionPhiladelphia Police Department Homicide Division
- Status of recordIn the decisions reviewed, no court has found misconduct by either detective; the PCRA petitions built on their names have been denied.
- Court record3 documented findings or disclosures; 3 PCRA-related decisions summarized below
What the courts have found or the Commonwealth has disclosed
In Anthony Wright's federal civil case, the complaint alleged that Jastrzembski obtained a search warrant after other detectives reported a fabricated confession and claimed to have found the clothing described in that confession, when the items had been recovered from the victim's home, that Jastrzembski and another detective took statements from teenage witnesses who later testified that their interrogators coerced them, and that Santiago participated in obtaining Wright's confession. These are allegations recited at the motion-to-dismiss stage; the court made no findings. The Superior Court in Bryant nonetheless described Jastrzembski as having "withheld exculpatory evidence and fabricated the evidence" in Wright, based on that complaint.
Source: Wright v. City of Philadelphia, 229 F. Supp. 3d 322 (E.D. Pa. 2017); Commonwealth v. Bryant, No. 3371 EDA 2019 (Pa. Super. July 30, 2021) (reissued memorandum)
In James Dennis's federal habeas case, the en banc Third Circuit granted a conditional writ for Brady violations. It noted that Jastrzembski led the team of detectives and that he and Santiago interviewed an alternative suspect whose alibi was never verified, and that documents relating to that tip were suppressed. The court attributed the suppression to the Commonwealth and made no finding of officer misconduct.
Source: Dennis v. Secretary, Pa. Dep't of Corrections, 834 F.3d 263 (3d Cir. 2016) (en banc)
A petitioner alleged that Jastrzembski beat him during his interrogation in the case while Santiago twisted his arm. The PCRA court found nothing in the record to support the allegation and noted the claim had been litigated at the 1994 suppression hearing.
Source: Commonwealth v. Reeves, 296 A.3d 1228 (Pa. Super. 2023)
PCRA cases involving Frank Jastrzembski and Manuel Santiago
Commonwealth v. Gregory Reeves
Second petition dismissed. The petitioner cited the 2021 "Homicide Files" reporting on 89 cases.
Timeliness. "Newspaper articles referencing misconduct by Detectives Jastrzembski and Santiago in matters unrelated to Appellant do not constitute newly-discovered facts. Appellant cites no new information in his case."
Commonwealth v. Reginald Bryant
Denied. The claim based on Jastrzembski's conduct in Wright was time-barred and lacked a nexus: "an officer's misconduct in an unrelated case does not automatically invalidate the results of all other cases the officer has ever been assigned to."
Timeliness. The Wright civil ruling was issued January 17, 2017, and the petitioner had 60 days from then; he waited more than two years and did not say when he learned of it.
Dennis v. Secretary
Federal habeas relief. Conditional writ granted on Brady grounds in a case Jastrzembski and Santiago investigated.
Timeliness. Not a PCRA case.
When the misconduct became public: the dates that control the deadline
The only date a court has fixed is January 17, 2017, the Wright civil ruling, used in Bryant. Reeves held that the 2021 news series was not a new fact at all.
What this means for a petition. In the decisions reviewed, there is no court finding to build on here. A petition that names Jastrzembski or Santiago must stand on evidence from the petitioner's own case: a witness who says a statement was fabricated, a suppressed document, a record contradicting the detective's testimony. Reporting about other cases will not satisfy Castro, and the 2017 date in Bryant means the Wright allegations alone are long stale as a trigger.
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.