Reginald Graham
Reginald Graham resigned after a Police Board of Inquiry found him guilty of theft and lying, and the Commonwealth stated it would never again call him as a witness. His name is on the leading published Superior Court decision granting a new trial based on an officer's corruption, Commonwealth v. Robert Williams, which also records a stipulation that, according to a defender's sworn affidavit, the Commonwealth agreed to PCRA relief without a hearing in over 1,500 cases resting on officers it considered not credible.
By John A. Julian, Esq. Updated October 1, 2026. Every statement is drawn from the court document cited beside it.
- PositionFormer officer, Philadelphia Police Department Narcotics Field Unit; with former Officer Jeffrey Walker
- Status of recordPolice Board of Inquiry finding; the Commonwealth has said it will not call him as a witness.
- Court record4 documented findings or disclosures; 1 PCRA-related decisions summarized below
What the courts have found or the Commonwealth has disclosed
Stipulated facts recited by the Superior Court: "The Commonwealth does not stand behind the credibility of Officer Graham's testimony at Williams' trial." In an FBI interview, former Officer Jeffrey Walker alleged that Graham engaged in theft as a police officer several years before Williams's arrest. "The Philadelphia Police Department Board of Inquiry found Officer Graham guilty of theft and lying and recommended his dismissal from the police department. Officer Graham resigned." The Commonwealth stated it would never again call Graham as a witness at trial.
Source: Commonwealth v. Robert Williams, 2019 PA Super 225, Nos. 3880 EDA 2017 and 2242 EDA 2018 (Pa. Super. July 24, 2019)
On March 8, 2018, the Commonwealth disclosed a partial copy of its "Police Misconduct Review Committee Spreadsheet," which listed Graham as having been investigated by federal authorities. The Commonwealth had information about Graham's misconduct as of September 7, 2014 that was not made available to Williams until March 8, 2018.
Source: Commonwealth v. Robert Williams, 2019 PA Super 225
According to the stipulated affidavit of Bradley Bridge, Esquire, "the Commonwealth agreed to PCRA relief, without an evidentiary hearing, in over 1500 cases, where convictions were based on testimony of police officers considered not credible." Three petitions by individuals arrested by Graham were granted without a hearing.
Source: Commonwealth v. Robert Williams, 2019 PA Super 225
Walker's sworn affidavit stated that he engaged in corruption with Graham as members of the Narcotics Field Unit, "such as manufacturing probable cause for search warrants and misusing informants," and that he believed Graham fabricated the probable cause for the warrant in Williams's case.
Source: Commonwealth v. Robert Williams, 2019 PA Super 225
PCRA cases involving Reginald Graham
Commonwealth v. Robert Williams
Relief. PCRA order reversed, petition granted, judgments of sentence vacated, new trial ordered before a different judge. The Commonwealth conceded a new trial was required. The court held the evidence of Graham's corruption and the Gibson and Walker affidavits were not cumulative, would not be used solely to impeach because Graham was the sole witness, and would likely compel a different verdict.
Timeliness. The petition, filed February 14, 2018, was permitted while a probation-revocation appeal was pending. The evidence was unavailable at the 2008 trial because prosecutors knew of the corruption allegations as early as 2014 but did not inform Williams before 2018; Williams contended he first learned of Graham's credibility issues on February 13, 2018, when the Inquirer reported that Graham was on the do-not-call list; the Superior Court found no error in the PCRA court's timeliness ruling.
When the misconduct became public: the dates that control the deadline
September 7, 2014 (Commonwealth in possession of misconduct information); February 13, 2018 (Inquirer reports the do-not-call list); March 8, 2018 (Commonwealth discloses the misconduct spreadsheet). Williams is the rare case in which the Commonwealth's own earlier knowledge of the misconduct established that the petitioner could not have obtained the evidence earlier through reasonable diligence.
What this means for a petition. Williams is the template. The officer was the sole witness, the Commonwealth's own records showed it knew of the misconduct years before disclosing it, a cooperating officer supplied an affidavit tying the corruption to the petitioner's case, and the petition was filed the day after the news report, before the Commonwealth's own disclosure. A petitioner whose narcotics conviction rested on Graham's testimony, and who has not already obtained relief, should expect the Commonwealth to concede if the petition is timely, and should be prepared to litigate timeliness from the February and March 2018 dates.
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.