substantive after-discovered-evidence claim in Pennsylvania

2021Once jurisdiction is established, a PCRA petitioner can present a substantive after-discovered evidence claim. -7- Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171, 176 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citations omitted).

2021See Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171, 176 (Pa. 2015) (“Once jurisdiction is established, a PCRA petitioner can present a substantive after-discovered-evidence claim.”).

2025Commonwealth v. Washington, 592 Pa. 698 , 927 A.2d 586 (2007).

2025Commonwealth v. Washington, 592 Pa. 698 , 927 A.2d 586 (2007).

2026See Commonwealth v. Reeves, 296 A.3d 1228, 1232 (Pa. Super. 2023) (“Once jurisdiction is established, a PCRA petitioner can present a substantive after-discovered-evidence claim.”); see also Commonwealth v. Brown, 350 A.3d 12 , 34 (Pa. 2026) (stating that a PCRA “petitioner may satisfy the timeliness exception even if his or her underlying, substantive claim turns out to be meritless.”).

2026See id.; see also Whitehawk, supra. Though Appellant briefly refers to purported after-discovered evidence of Officer Grayo’s misconduct, it is well settled that “the newly-discovered facts exception to the time limitations of the PCRA, as set forth in subsection 9545(b)(1)(ii), is distinct from the after- discovered basis for relief delineated in 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2).” -4- Commonwealth v. Burton, 158 A.3d 618, 629 (Pa. 2017); see also Commonwealth v. Reeves, 296 A.3d 1228, 1232 (Pa. Super. 2023) (“Once jurisdiction is established, a PCRA petitioner can present a substantive after- discov

2026See id.; see also Whitehawk, supra. Though Appellant briefly refers to purported after-discovered evidence of Officer Grayo’s misconduct, it is well settled that “the newly-discovered facts exception to the time limitations of the PCRA, as set forth in subsection 9545(b)(1)(ii), is distinct from the after- discovered basis for relief delineated in 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2).” -4- Commonwealth v. Burton, 158 A.3d 618, 629 (Pa. 2017); see also Commonwealth v. Reeves, 296 A.3d 1228, 1232 (Pa. Super. 2023) (“Once jurisdiction is established, a PCRA petitioner can present a substantive after- discov

2025“Once jurisdiction is established, a PCRA petitioner can present a substantive after-discovered-evidence claim.” Commonwealth v. Reeves, 296 A.3d 1228, 1232 (Pa. Super. 2023); see also Commonwealth v. Burton, 158 A.3d 618, 627-29 (Pa. 2017) (explaining that the after-discovered evidence grounds for PCRA relief and the newly discovered facts exception to the PCRA’s time-bar are separate and distinct).

2020See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(ii); Bennett, supra. Once jurisdiction is established, a PCRA petitioner can present a substantive after-discovered-evidence claim.

2018See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(ii); Bennett, supra. Once jurisdiction is established, a PCRA petitioner can present a substantive after-discovered-evidence claim.

2026Commonwealth v. Robinson, 185 A.3d 1055, 1059 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en banc) (citing Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264, 1270-72 (Pa. 2007)).

2026Commonwealth v. Robinson, 185 A.3d 1055, 1059 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en banc) (citing Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264, 1270-72 (Pa. 2007)).

2018“Once jurisdiction has been established, a PCRA petitioner can present a substantive after-discovered- evidence claim.” Id. at 176 . -6- J-S02019-18 The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that “the presumption that information which is of public record cannot be deemed ‘unknown’ for purposes of subsection 9545(b)(1)(ii) does not apply to pro se prisoner petitioners[.]” Burton, 158 A.3d at 638 (emphasis in original).

2018“Once jurisdiction has been established, a PCRA petitioner can present a substantive after-discovered-evidence claim.” Id. at 176 (citation omitted).

2026Appellant’s Brief at 29; see also Commonwealth v. Williams, 244 A.3d 1281 , 1289 n.20 (Pa. Super. 2021) (“It is only after a petitioner establishes jurisdiction by pleading and proving the newly-discovered facts exception that he or she can then present a substantive after-discovered evidence claim pursuant to section 9543(a)(2)(vi) of the PCRA.” (emphasis in original; one citation omitted)).

2025“It is only after a petitioner establishes jurisdiction by pleading and proving the newly discovered facts exception that he or she can then present a substantive after-discovered evidence claim pursuant to Section 9543(a)(2)(vi) of the PCRA.” Id. (formatting altered). -8- See Commonwealth v. Tedford, 960 A.2d 1 , 10 n.4 (Pa. 2008) (“[A] criminal defendant currently represented by counsel is not entitled to ‘hybrid representation’—i.e., he cannot litigate certain issues pro se while counsel forwards other claims.”) (citations omitted); Commonwealth v. Markowitz, 32 A.3d 706 , 713 n.5 (Pa. Supe

2026See Commonwealth v. Griffin, 137 A.3d 605, 608 (Pa. Super. 2016) (setting forth the four requirements of an after-discovered evidence claim, and stating that “[t]he proposed new evidence must be producible and admissible.”) (emphasis added; citation omitted).

2026Further, the admissibility of the polygraph test results relates to the merits of a substantive after-discovered evidence claim under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2)(vi).14 See Commonwealth v. Griffin, 137 A.3d 605, 608 (Pa. Super. 2016) (setting forth the four ____________________________________________ 12 Rule 104 provides in subsection (a) that a trial court “must decide any preliminary question about whether a witness is qualified, a privilege exists, or evidence is admissible.

2024Even if the audio and video recordings were made available to this panel, we would be inclined to defer to the trial court’s evaluation of the evidence as it was present for all the testimony taken below and “[o]ur task is not to - 25 - engage in a de novo evaluation of testimony.” Commonwealth v. Cobbs, 759 A.2d 932, 934 (Pa. Super. 2000) (addressing a substantive after- discovered evidence claim on PCRA review).

2022See Cobbs, 759 A.2d at 934-35 .

2021With respect to after-discovered evidence, this Court has explained that, “[i]n order to obtain relief on a substantive after-discovered evidence claim, a petitioner must demonstrate that: (1) the evidence has been discovered after trial and it could not have been obtained at or prior to trial through reasonable diligence; (2) the evidence is not cumulative; (3) it is not being used solely to impeach credibility; and (4) it would likely compel a different verdict.” Commonwealth v. Diggs, 220 A.3d 1112, 1117 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted); see also 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)(vi) (stating tha

2021See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)(vi).” Diggs, 220 A.3d at 1117 .

2019See Brown, 111 A.3d at 176 (reiterating that Section 9545(b)(1)(ii) is “an initial jurisdictional threshold” that must be established before a petitioner can present a substantive after-discovered-evidence claim). -9- “prove that the facts were ‘unknown’ to him and that he could not uncover them with the exercise of ‘due diligence.’ Such questions require further fact- finding and the PCRA court, acting as fact finder, should determine whether Appellant met the ‘proof’ requirement under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii).”); see also Burton, 121 A.3d at 1070 .

2017Brown, 111 A.3d at 176 -77 (quotation marks and citations omitted). “[D]ue diligence requires neither perfect vigilance nor punctilious care, but rather it requires reasonable efforts by a petitioner, based on the particular circumstances, to uncover facts that may support a claim for collateral relief.” [Commonwealth] v. Burton, 121 A.3d 1063, 1071 (Pa. Super. 2015). -8- J-S88041-16 To obtain relief on a substantive after-discovered-evidence claim under the PCRA, a petitioner must demonstrate: (1) the evidence has been discovered after trial and it could not have been obtained at or prior to

2018“Once jurisdiction has been established, a PCRA petitioner can present a substantive after-discovered- evidence claim.” Id. at 176 . -6- J-S02019-18 The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that “the presumption that information which is of public record cannot be deemed ‘unknown’ for purposes of subsection 9545(b)(1)(ii) does not apply to pro se prisoner petitioners[.]” Burton, 158 A.3d at 638 (emphasis in original).

2018A. Detective Dove Appellant claims that Detective Dove “pled guilty to several charges related to assistance he provide[d] to help someone flee from arrest after they committed a murder on April 26, 2017.” Appellant’s Brief at 10. ____________________________________________ 3 In so holding, the Burton Court discussed the amicus brief filed by the Pennsylvania Exonorees, which explained that “the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections’ . . . policies do not provide for inmate access to the internet or internet-based tools for legal research, either directly or through prison staff.” Burton, 15

2026See Commonwealth v. Reeves, 296 A.3d 1228, 1232 (Pa. Super. 2023) (“Once jurisdiction is established, a PCRA petitioner can present a substantive after-discovered-evidence claim” under subsection 9543(a)(2)(vi) (emphasis added; citation omitted)); see also Commonwealth v. Fears, 250 A.3d 1180 , 1189 (Pa. 2021) (“Without jurisdiction, [a] court does not have the legal authority to address substantive claims” raised under the PCRA) (citing Cox, 146 A.3d at 226 (stating that “a court may not address the merits of any claim raised unless the [PCRA] petition was timely filed or the petitioner prove

2026See id.; see also Whitehawk, supra. Though Appellant briefly refers to purported after-discovered evidence of Officer Grayo’s misconduct, it is well settled that “the newly-discovered facts exception to the time limitations of the PCRA, as set forth in subsection 9545(b)(1)(ii), is distinct from the after- discovered basis for relief delineated in 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2).” -4- Commonwealth v. Burton, 158 A.3d 618, 629 (Pa. 2017); see also Commonwealth v. Reeves, 296 A.3d 1228, 1232 (Pa. Super. 2023) (“Once jurisdiction is established, a PCRA petitioner can present a substantive after- discov

2026See Commonwealth v. Reeves, 296 A.3d 1228, 1232 (Pa. Super. 2023) (“Once jurisdiction is established, a PCRA petitioner can present a substantive after-discovered-evidence claim” under subsection 9543(a)(2)(vi) (emphasis added; citation omitted)); see also Commonwealth v. Fears, 250 A.3d 1180 , 1189 (Pa. 2021) (“Without jurisdiction, [a] court does not have the legal authority to address substantive claims” raised under the PCRA) (citing Cox, 146 A.3d at 226 (stating that “a court may not address the merits of any claim raised unless the [PCRA] petition was timely filed or the petitioner prove

2026See Commonwealth v. Reeves, 296 A.3d 1228, 1232 (Pa. Super. 2023) (“Once jurisdiction is established, a PCRA petitioner can present a substantive after-discovered-evidence claim.”); see also Commonwealth v. Brown, 350 A.3d 12 , 34 (Pa. 2026) (stating that a PCRA “petitioner may satisfy the timeliness exception even if his or her underlying, substantive claim turns out to be meritless.”).

2026See Commonwealth v. Smith, 194 A.3d 126, 135 (Pa. Super. 2018) (holding that defendant did not satisfy due diligence requirement by offering no reasonable explanation for a 16-year delay in obtaining new evidence). - 20 - Appellant asserts that he wanted to pursue review of a substantive after- discovered evidence claim based on the reports of alleged prior misconduct by Detective Baker to bolster assertions that the detective played a role in making sure that the eyewitnesses had a chance to view him in the police homicide unit or otherwise coerced the witnesses to cooperate with the investig

2026See id. § 9543(a)(2)(vi) (explaining that to be eligible for relief, petitioner must plead and prove by a preponderance of evidence that the conviction or sentence resulted from, inter alia, unavailability at the time of trial of exculpatory evidence that has subsequently become available and would have changed [the] outcome of trial if it had been introduced). *** Thus, the “new facts” exception at Section 9545(b)(1)(ii) does not require any merits analysis of an underlying after-discovered- evidence claim. [Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264, 1271 (Pa. 2007).] Commonwealth v. Brown, 111

2025“It is only after a petitioner establishes jurisdiction by pleading and proving the newly discovered facts exception that he or she can then present a substantive after-discovered evidence claim pursuant to Section 9543(a)(2)(vi) of the PCRA.” Id. (formatting altered). -8- See Commonwealth v. Tedford, 960 A.2d 1 , 10 n.4 (Pa. 2008) (“[A] criminal defendant currently represented by counsel is not entitled to ‘hybrid representation’—i.e., he cannot litigate certain issues pro se while counsel forwards other claims.”) (citations omitted); Commonwealth v. Markowitz, 32 A.3d 706 , 713 n.5 (Pa. Supe

2025“It is only after a petitioner establishes jurisdiction by pleading and proving the newly discovered facts exception that he or she can then present a substantive after-discovered evidence claim pursuant to Section 9543(a)(2)(vi) of the PCRA.” Id. (formatting altered). -8- See Commonwealth v. Tedford, 960 A.2d 1 , 10 n.4 (Pa. 2008) (“[A] criminal defendant currently represented by counsel is not entitled to ‘hybrid representation’—i.e., he cannot litigate certain issues pro se while counsel forwards other claims.”) (citations omitted); Commonwealth v. Markowitz, 32 A.3d 706 , 713 n.5 (Pa. Supe

2025Additionally, “[i]t is well settled in Pennsylvania that the focus of the exception found at § 9545(b)(1)(ii) is on newly discovered facts, not on newly discovered or newly willing sources that corroborate previously known facts or previously raised claims.” Commonwealth v. Maxwell, 232 A.3d 739, 745 (Pa. Super. 2020) (en banc) (some formatting altered).

2022See Commonwealth v. Williams, 244 A.3d 1281 , 1289 n.20 (Pa. Super. 2021) (explaining that a claim of newly discovered evidence under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii) is a jurisdictional threshold that does not require any merits analysis of an underlying after-discovered evidence claim, and it is only after a petitioner establishes jurisdiction by pleading and proving the newly discovered facts exception that he or she can then present a substantive after-discovered evidence claim pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)(vi)). -8- court’s legal conclusions.” Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 105 A.3d 1257, 126

2022See also Commonwealth v. Lambert, 884 A.2d 848, 854 (Pa. 2005) (“[T]here are three necessary components that demonstrate a violation of the Brady strictures: the evidence was favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory or because it impeaches; the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution, either willfully or inadvertently; and prejudice ensued.” (cleaned up)).

2021Commonwealth v. Johnson, 966 A.2d 523, 541 (Pa. 2009). 3 Appellant does not contest the PCRA court’s dismissal of his Brady claim.

2021See Commonwealth v. Smith, 518 Pa. 15 , 540 A.2d 246 (1988) (stating proposed after-discovered evidence must be producible and admissible).

2021See Commonwealth v. Smith, 518 Pa. 15 , 540 A.2d 246 (1988) (stating proposed after-discovered evidence must be producible and admissible).

2020See id. 5 Even if we could reach the substantive after-discovered-evidence claim, we would agree with the PCRA court that Appellant’s claim would not merit relief.