post-trial evidentiary hearing in Pennsylvania

2020Co., 831 A.2d 140, 146 (Pa. 2003) (“In certain situations, it may be proper for a trial court to permit a post-trial evidentiary hearing to determine if new evidence offered in support of a post-trial motion constitutes after-discovered evidence.

2015In Claudio , our Supreme Court addressed “whether a trial court can, pursuant to [Pa.R.Civ.P.] 227.1, conduct a post-trial evidentiary hearing and grant post-trial relief to correct an error when the error alleged is attributable ... to the party seeking relief.” Claudio, 831 A.2d at 141 .

2021A post-sentence motion for evidentiary hearing "must, at the very least, describe the evidence that will be presented at the hearing" without "[s]imply relying on conclusory accusations made by another, without more . . . " Commonwealth v. Castro, 93 A.3d 818, 827 (Pa. 2014) (finding that an article alleging police officer's misconduct that referenced individuals "who may have been relevant witnesses in the end" did not warrant an evidentiary hearing).

2003DMI cites to a litany of sources to support the proposition that “[t]he purpose of Rule 227.1(b) is to provide the trial court with an opportunity to review and reconsider its earlier rulings and correct its own error.” Soderberg v. Weisel, 455 Pa.Super. 158 , 687 A.2d 839, 845 (1997) (emphasis added).

2003DMI cites to a litany of sources to support the proposition that “[t]he purpose of Rule 227.1(b) is to provide the trial court with an opportunity to review and reconsider its earlier rulings and correct its own error.” Soderberg v. Weisel, 455 Pa.Super. 158 , 687 A.2d 839, 845 (1997) (emphasis added).

2001See Hydro-Flex, 296 A.2d at 877 .

2001See Hydro-Flex, 296 A.2d at 877 .

2000Given the physical evidence, location of the tire marks and radiator fluid spill, the relative positions of the vehicles immediately after the collision and *3 the testimony of both parties, we find no abuse of the trial court’s discretion. ¶ 7 Next, Appellant contends that relief is due because of the trial court’s refusal to hold a post trial evidentiary hearing on what she characterizes as juror misconduct, specifically the jury foreman’s visit to the scene of the accident, despite instructions not to do so, which she claims affected the verdict. ¶ 8 The evidentiary rule in Pennsylvania reg

2000Given the physical evidence, location of the tire marks and radiator fluid spill, the relative positions of the vehicles immediately after the collision and *3 the testimony of both parties, we find no abuse of the trial court’s discretion. ¶ 7 Next, Appellant contends that relief is due because of the trial court’s refusal to hold a post trial evidentiary hearing on what she characterizes as juror misconduct, specifically the jury foreman’s visit to the scene of the accident, despite instructions not to do so, which she claims affected the verdict. ¶ 8 The evidentiary rule in Pennsylvania reg

2000Given the physical evidence, location of the tire marks and radiator fluid spill, the relative positions of the vehicles immediately after the collision and *3 the testimony of both parties, we find no abuse of the trial court’s discretion. ¶ 7 Next, Appellant contends that relief is due because of the trial court’s refusal to hold a post trial evidentiary hearing on what she characterizes as juror misconduct, specifically the jury foreman’s visit to the scene of the accident, despite instructions not to do so, which she claims affected the verdict. ¶ 8 The evidentiary rule in Pennsylvania reg

2000Given the physical evidence, location of the tire marks and radiator fluid spill, the relative positions of the vehicles immediately after the collision and *3 the testimony of both parties, we find no abuse of the trial court’s discretion. ¶ 7 Next, Appellant contends that relief is due because of the trial court’s refusal to hold a post trial evidentiary hearing on what she characterizes as juror misconduct, specifically the jury foreman’s visit to the scene of the accident, despite instructions not to do so, which she claims affected the verdict. ¶ 8 The evidentiary rule in Pennsylvania reg

1996Commonwealth v. Basemore, 525 Pa. 512, 531 , 582 A.2d 861, 870 (1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1102 , 112 S.Ct. 1191 , 117 L.Ed.2d 432 (1992) (reasonable trial strategy not to argue lack of significant history of criminal convictions where it could open the door to a single robbery conviction).

1996Commonwealth v. Basemore, 525 Pa. 512, 531 , 582 A.2d 861, 870 (1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1102 , 112 S.Ct. 1191 , 117 L.Ed.2d 432 (1992) (reasonable trial strategy not to argue lack of significant history of criminal convictions where it could open the door to a single robbery conviction).

1986Commonwealth v. Jones, 341 Pa. 541 , 19 A.2d 389 (1941); Commonwealth v. Becker, 326 Pa. 105 , 191 A. 351 (1937); McCormick on Evidence, § 191, 3rd Ed. (1984). 13 We find counsel’s concern, that the potential harm from cross-examination of character witnesses outweighed the doubtful value of their testimony, was a reasonable basis for not pursuing potential character witnesses or presenting character evidence.

1986Commonwealth v. Jones, 341 Pa. 541 , 19 A.2d 389 (1941); Commonwealth v. Becker, 326 Pa. 105 , 191 A. 351 (1937); McCormick on Evidence, § 191, 3rd Ed. (1984). 13 We find counsel’s concern, that the potential harm from cross-examination of character witnesses outweighed the doubtful value of their testimony, was a reasonable basis for not pursuing potential character witnesses or presenting character evidence.