potential witness claim in Pennsylvania

2017When raising a failure to call a potential witness claim, the PCRA petitioner satisfies the performance and prejudice requirement of the Strickland[3] test by establishing that: (1) the witness existed; (2) the witness was available to testify for the defense; (3) counsel knew of, or should have known of, the existence of the witness; (4) the witness was willing to testify for the defense; and (5) the absence of the testimony of the witness was so prejudicial as to have denied the defendant a fair trial. ____________________________________________ 3 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 688 (198

2014When raising a failure to call a potential witness claim, the PCRA petitioner satisfies the performance and prejudice requirements of the Strickland test by establishing that: (1) the witness existed; (2) the witness was available to testify for the defense; (3) counsel knew of, or should have known of, the existence of the witness; (4) the witness was willing to testify for the defense; and (5) the absence of the testimony of the witness was so prejudicial as to have denied the defendant a fair trial. ____________________________________________ 1 However, he did discuss Appellant’s right to

2018"When raising a failure to cat! a potential witness claim, the PCRA petitioner satisfies the performance and prejudice requirements of the [Pierce test] by establishing that:'··· ; (l) the witness existed; (2) the witness was available to testify for the defense; (3) couns�'i knew of, or should have known of, the existence of the witness; (4) the witness was willing to testify for the defense; and (5) the abJ�nce of the testimony of the witness was so prejudicial as to have denied the.defendant ... a fair trial." Commonwealth v.. Johnson, 966 A.2d 523, 536 (Pa. 2009).

2015A review of Appellant’s written ____________________________________________ 5 “When raising a failure to call a potential witness claim, the PCRA petition satisfies the performance and prejudice requirements [of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984),] . . . by establishing that: (1) the witness existed; (2) the witness was available to testify for the defense; (3) counsel knew of, or should have know of, the existence of the witness; (4) the witness was willing to testify for the defense; and (5) the absence of the testimony of the witness was so prejudicial as to have denied the defe

2018Commonwealth v. Gibson, 597 Pa. 402 , 951 A.2d 1110, 1134 (2008); see also Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 585 Pa. 547 , 889 A.2d 501, 546 (2005) (“Trial counsel’s failure to call a particular witness does not constitute ineffective assistance without some showing that the absent witness’ testimony would have been beneficial or helpful in establishing the asserted defense.”).

2018Commonwealth v. Gibson, 597 Pa. 402 , 951 A.2d 1110, 1134 (2008); see also Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 585 Pa. 547 , 889 A.2d 501, 546 (2005) (“Trial counsel’s failure to call a particular witness does not constitute ineffective assistance without some showing that the absent witness’ testimony would have been beneficial or helpful in establishing the asserted defense.”).

2018Commonwealth v. Gibson, 597 Pa. 402 , 951 A.2d 1110, 1134 (2008); see also Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 585 Pa. 547 , 889 A.2d 501, 546 (2005) (“Trial counsel’s failure to call a particular witness does not constitute ineffective assistance without some showing that the absent witness’ testimony would have been beneficial or helpful in establishing the asserted defense.”).

2018Commonwealth v. Gibson, 597 Pa. 402 , 951 A.2d 1110, 1134 (2008); see also Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 585 Pa. 547 , 889 A.2d 501, 546 (2005) (“Trial counsel’s failure to call a particular witness does not constitute ineffective assistance without some showing that the absent witness’ testimony would have been beneficial or helpful in establishing the asserted defense.”).

2018See also Commonwealth v. Lauro, 819 A.2d 100 , I �;i (Pa. Super. 2003 ).

2017To demonstrate Strickland prejudice, the PCRA petitioner “must show how the uncalled witnesses’ testimony would have been beneficial under the circumstances of the case.” Commonwealth v. Johnson, 966 A.2d 523, 535-36 (Pa. 2009) (citations omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Moser, 921 A.2d 526, 531 (Pa. Super. 2007) (applying a similar standard to a claim of ineffectiveness of plea counsel for refusing to call witnesses). -9- J-S38044-17 In his amended PCRA petition, Appellant essentially pleaded that (1) witnesses existed, (2) witnesses were available, and (3) plea counsel knew of, or should h

2015See Commonwealth v. Michaud, 70 A.3d 862, 868 (Pa. Super. 2013) (holding that trial counsel was not ineffective for choosing a strategy that did not include good character testimony where the appellant made an incriminating statement, and appellant’s “character was likely beyond repair within the fact finder’s eyes.”).2 With regard to Perrotta, we note that when raising a failure to call a potential witness claim, the PCRA petitioner must establish that: (1) the witness existed; (2) the witness was available to testify for the defense; (3) counsel knew of, or should have known of, the existenc