after-discovered evidence claim in Pennsylvania

2026Burton, 158 A.3d at 629 (to establish an after-discovered evidence claim under subsection 9543(a)(2)(vi), the petitioner must prove, inter alia, that the exculpatory evidence is not being offered solely to impeach credibility); see also Commonwealth v. Brown, 134 A.3d 1097, 1109 (Pa. Super. 2016) (upholding PCRA court’s rejection of Brown’s claim that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing regarding after- discovered evidence based on newspaper articles detailing the misconduct of two Philadelphia Police detectives in cases unrelated to Brown’s, where, absent proof that these two officers h

2024See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171, 177 (Pa. Super. 2015) (appellant’s reliance on Section 9543 as a basis for asserting an after-discovered evidence claim under the PCRA did not suspend appellant’s initial obligation to establish jurisdiction by alleging and proving (a) the existence of facts that were unknown to him and (b) his exercise of due diligence in discovering those facts, under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(ii)); see also Burton, 158 A.3d at 629 (and cases cited therein).

2026Bailey’s reliance on section 9543(a)(2)(vi) “as a basis for asserting an after-discovered-evidence claim under the PCRA … did not suspend [his] initial obligation to establish jurisdiction by alleging and proving (a) the existence of facts that were unknown to him and (b) his exercise of due diligence in discovering those facts.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171, 177 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citing 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii)).

2024See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171, 177 (Pa. Super. 2015) (appellant’s reliance on Section 9543 as a basis for asserting an after-discovered evidence claim under the PCRA did not suspend appellant’s initial obligation to establish jurisdiction by alleging and proving (a) the existence of facts that were unknown to him and (b) his exercise of due diligence in discovering those facts, under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(ii)); see also Burton, 158 A.3d at 629 (and cases cited therein).

2025When considering a claim involving recanted testimony, “[t]he well- established rule is that an appellate court may not interfere with the denial or granting of a new trial where the sole ground is the alleged recantation of state witnesses unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion[.]” Commonwealth v. Loner, 836 A.2d 125, 135 (Pa. Super. 2003) (en banc) (citation omitted). “[W]e have emphasized that, when addressing an after- discovered evidence claim premised on recantation testimony, the PCRA court must, in the first instance, assess the credibility and significance of the recantatio

2025Cf. Commonwealth v. Weiss, 81 A.3d 767, 784 (Pa. 2013) (to receive a new trial, the defendant must demonstrate that evidence concerning the reliability of the witness may well have been determinative of guilt or innocence). -7- J-S41036-24 An after-discovered evidence claim requires a petitioner to demonstrate that new evidence: “(1) could not have been obtained prior to the conclusion of the trial by the exercise of reasonable diligence; (2) is not merely corroborative or cumulative; (3) will not be used solely to impeach the credibility of a witness; and (4) would likely result in a differen

2025PCRA Ct. Op. at 13-14. -9- J-S02038-25 A petitioner asserting an after-discovered evidence claim under the PCRA must plead and prove 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. Cox, 146 A.3d 221, 228 (Pa. 2016) (quoting Commonwealth v. D'Amato, 856 A.2d 806, 823 (Pa. 2004)).

2024When addressing an after-discovered evidence claim based on recantation testimony, “the PCRA court must, in the first instance, assess the credibility and significance of the recantation in light of the evidence as a whole.” Commonwealth v. Small, 189 A.3d 961, 977 (Pa. 2018) (quoting Commonwealth v. D’Amato, 856 A.2d 806, 825 (Pa. 2004)).

2026In Bennett, for example, we held that the Superior Court erred by relying upon Yarris to require a petitioner to establish the merits of the underlying claim in order to establish the newly discovered facts exception.97 We held that none of the requirements of the underlying after-discovered evidence claim, including consideration of the impact of the evidence had it been introduced, “exist in § 9545(b)(1)(ii).”98 A petitioner’s satisfaction of the newly discovered facts exception does not in any way depend upon the merits of the underlying claim. 99 96 Id. at 592. 97 Bennett, 930 A.2d at 1271

2024Commonwealth v. Bennet, 930 A.2d 1264 , 1274 (Pa. 2007). “[T]he newly[-]discovered fact[s] exception[, however,] does not require any merits analysis of the underlying claim, and application of the time-bar exception[,] therefore[,] does not necessitate proof of the elements of a claim of after-discovered evidence.” Commonwealth v. Small, 238 A.3d 1267 , 1286 (Pa. 2020) (original quotation marks omitted) (noting that, the newly-discovered facts exception to the jurisdictional time-bar is distinct from an after-discovered evidence claim, which is a substantive basis for relief - 22 - J-S03012-2

2026To prove an after-discovered evidence claim, the petitioner must show that the evidence “would likely compel a different verdict.” Commonwealth v. Cox, 146 A.3d 221, 228 (Pa. 2016).

2025In order to successfully prove an after-discovered evidence claim under Section 9543(a)(2)(vi), the petitioner must show 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 ____________________________________________ 4 In its brief, the Commonwealth did not challenge the PCRA court’s finding that Appellant met the newly-discovered fact exception to the time bar. -7- J-S02033-25 is not being used solely to impeach credibility; and (4) it would likely compel a dif

2024See Padillas, -8- J-S40012-23 997 A.2d at 363 (explaining that a defendant must prove each prong of the after-discovered evidence test by a preponderance of the evidence).

2023The after-discovered evidence test “is conjunctive; the defendant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that each of these factors has been met in order for a new trial to be warranted.” Commonwealth v. Padillas, 997 A.2d 356, 363 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citations omitted). -7- J-S06020-23 Our Supreme Court has explained that as a general matter, recantation evidence is notoriously unreliable, particularly where the witness claims to have committed perjury.

2023A key element of an after- discovered evidence claim is that the evidence would “likely result in a different verdict if a new trial were granted.” Commonwealth v. Pagan, 950 A.2d 270, 292 (Pa. 2008).

2022Commonwealth v. Small, 189 A.3d 961, 972 (Pa. 2018), citing Commonwealth v. Pagan, 950 A.2d 270 (Pa. 2008), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 1198 (2009); see also Commonwealth v. Peoples, 319 A.2d 679, 681 (Pa. 1974) (stating that, the four-part after-discovered evidence test applies whether the petitioner seeks the withdrawal of a guilty plea or a new trial).

2025See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Foreman, 55 A.3d 532, 537-38 (Pa. Super. 2012) (rejecting an after-discovered evidence claim by finding, inter alia, that the appellant “failed to show any nexus between his case and [police officer’s] alleged misconduct in an incident, which occurred more than two years after [a]ppellant’s conviction[]”).

2024As Brown failed to present any evidence that Detective Pitts committed misconduct in his case, Brown’s proposed witness testimony could only be used to attack Detective Pitts’ credibility, which did not satisfy the after-discovered evidence test.3 Similarly, in the instant case, even if Appellant could present evidence of Detective Pitts’ misconduct in unrelated cases, Appellant failed to point to ____________________________________________ 3 See also Commonwealth v. Foreman, 55 A.3d 532 (Pa.Super. 2012) (determining that the filing of criminal charges against the investigating detective in t

2026This Court held that neither affidavit satisfied the newly discovered facts exception, because the petitioner failed to establish that he could not have obtained the allegedly exculpatory information any earlier by the exercise of due diligence.90 In dicta, however, the Court stated that, even if the petitioner “were able to surmount the bar of untimeliness,” he would be unable to establish the merits of the underlying after-discovered evidence claim.91 An after-discovered evidence claim, this Court explained, requires the petitioner to plead and to prove “the unavailability at the time of tri

2026This Court held that neither affidavit satisfied the newly discovered facts exception, because the petitioner failed to establish that he could not have obtained the allegedly exculpatory information any earlier by the exercise of due diligence.90 In dicta, however, the Court stated that, even if the petitioner “were able to surmount the bar of untimeliness,” he would be unable to establish the merits of the underlying after-discovered evidence claim.91 An after-discovered evidence claim, this Court explained, requires the petitioner to plead and to prove “the unavailability at the time of tri

2021Id. at 827 ; see also Commonwealth v. Brown, 141 A.3d 491, 500 (Pa. Super. 2016) (stating that, “[i]t is possible for a petitioner to plead and prove the newly-discovered fact exception, which gives the PCRA court jurisdiction and permits it to consider the petition on the merits, and then ultimately fail on the merits of an after-discovered evidence claim”).

2020See Commonwealth v. Castro, 93 A.3d 818 , 827 n.13 (Pa. 2014) (noting that “[e]ven if [the] impeachment would ‘destroy and obliterate’ a witness, it is still impeachment, and the [after-discovered evidence] rule does not quantify the degree of impeachment beyond which the rule no longer applies”); City of Wilkes-Barre v. Wilkes-Barre Fire Fighters Association Local 104, 992 A.2d 246, 253 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (“[The doctrine of after-discovered evidence does not apply even to instances of perjury[] because the purpose of such evidence is for impeachment.”).

2024For an after-discovered-evidence claim to succeed, “there must be actual discovery of actual evidence, not - 12 - J-S15004-23 merely the possibility of such evidence.” Id. (cleaned up).

2022See Commonwealth v. Johnson, 179 A.3d 1105, 1123 (Pa. Super. 2018) (holding that, the criminal conviction of a police detective, who was involved in questioning a witness that identified the petitioner as the perpetrator, did not constitute after-discovered evidence because evidence of the conviction was being used for impeachment purposes and there was no evidence the police detective committed misconduct in the petitioner’s case); appeal denied, 197 A.3d 1174 (Pa. 2018); see also Commonwealth v. Foreman, 55 A.3d 532, 537 (Pa. Super. 2012) (holding that, “new evidence” of the filing of crimin

2017Turning our attention to the instant case, in dismissing Appellee’s PCRA petition as untimely, the PCRA court stated: In order to sustain an untimely PCRA Petition under the after-discovered evidence exception, a petitioner must show that the evidence: (1) has been discovered after the trial and could not have been obtained prior to the conclusion of the trial by the exercise of reasonable diligence; (2) is not merely corroborative or cumulative; (3) will not be used solely for impeachment purposes; and (4) is of such a nature and character that a different verdict will likely result if a new

2017Turning our attention to the instant case, in dismissing Appellee’s PCRA petition as untimely, the PCRA court stated: In order to sustain an untimely PCRA Petition under the after-discovered evidence exception, a petitioner must show that the evidence: (1) has been discovered after the trial and could not have been obtained prior to the conclusion of the trial by the exercise of reasonable diligence; (2) is not merely corroborative or cumulative; (3) will not be used solely for impeachment purposes; and (4) is of such a nature and character that a different verdict will likely result if a new

2023See Commonwealth v. Johnson, 179 A.3d 1105, 1123 (Pa.Super. 2018) (filing of criminal charges against detectives in an unrelated matter does not meet the after-discovered evidence test since such evidence would be used solely to impeach).

2022See Commonwealth v. Johnson, 179 A.3d 1105, 1123 (Pa. Super. 2018) (holding that, the criminal conviction of a police detective, who was involved in questioning a witness that identified the petitioner as the perpetrator, did not constitute after-discovered evidence because evidence of the conviction was being used for impeachment purposes and there was no evidence the police detective committed misconduct in the petitioner’s case); appeal denied, 197 A.3d 1174 (Pa. 2018); see also Commonwealth v. Foreman, 55 A.3d 532, 537 (Pa. Super. 2012) (holding that, “new evidence” of the filing of crimin

2023Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(C), cmt.6 To warrant relief, the appellant must prove, inter alia, that “the evidence is of such a nature and character that a different outcome is likely.” Commonwealth v. Rivera, 939 A.2d 355, 359 (Pa. Super. 2007). ____________________________________________ 5 These messages are included in the certified record as attachments to Appellant’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement. 6 Generally, when an appellant raises an after-discovered evidence claim for the first time on direct appeal, we remand to the trial court for it to rule on Appellant’s claim.

2021See Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(C) (providing that a claim of “after-discovered evidence discovered during the direct appeal process must be raised promptly”); see also Rivera, 939 A.2d at 359 (the first prong of the after-discovered evidence test is that the “the evidence could not have been obtained before the conclusion of the trial by reasonable diligence”).

2017To obtain relief on an after-discovered evidence claim, a petitioner must establish 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. Washington, 927 A.2d 586 , 595–96 (Pa. 2007).

2015See Commonwealth v. Foreman, 55 A.3d 532, 537 (Pa. Super. 2012) (stating new evidence “[did] not meet the after-discovered evidence test” where its main purpose “would be to impeach the detective’s credibility”). - 29 - J-S10008-15 supra at 98; Carr, supra at 1168 ; see also Washington, supra at 595- 96; Taylor, supra at 1041 .

2026It is well settled that when considering a claim of after-discovered evidence involving recanted testimony, “an appellate court may not interfere - 19 - J-E02004-25 with the … granting of a new trial where the sole ground is the alleged recantation of state witnesses unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Medina, 92 A.3d 1210, 1219 (Pa.Super. 2014) (en banc), appeal dismissed as improvidently granted, 636 Pa. 77 , 140 A.3d 675 (2016) (quoting Commonwealth v. McCracken, 540 Pa. 541, 549 , 659 A.2d 541, 545 (1995)) (brackets in original). “[W]e have emphasized that,

2026It is well settled that when considering a claim of after-discovered evidence involving recanted testimony, “an appellate court may not interfere - 19 - J-E02004-25 with the … granting of a new trial where the sole ground is the alleged recantation of state witnesses unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Medina, 92 A.3d 1210, 1219 (Pa.Super. 2014) (en banc), appeal dismissed as improvidently granted, 636 Pa. 77 , 140 A.3d 675 (2016) (quoting Commonwealth v. McCracken, 540 Pa. 541, 549 , 659 A.2d 541, 545 (1995)) (brackets in original). “[W]e have emphasized that,

2008D'Amato analyzed the appellant’s recantation evidence claim under the four-prong test for the after-discovered evidence exception, see Id., at 823-24 (citing Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 553 Pa. 485 , 720 A.2d 79, 94 (1998)); Commonwealth v. Williams, 557 Pa. 207 , 732 A.2d 1167, 1180 (1999), and such test remains the standard.

2008D'Amato analyzed the appellant’s recantation evidence claim under the four-prong test for the after-discovered evidence exception, see Id., at 823-24 (citing Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 553 Pa. 485 , 720 A.2d 79, 94 (1998)); Commonwealth v. Williams, 557 Pa. 207 , 732 A.2d 1167, 1180 (1999), and such test remains the standard.

2004Specifically, this case possesses a concreteness and immediacy that Haag lacked on the question of the after-discovered evidence exception: i.e., it does not involve a speculative future scenario, and the governing law is known. [6] Presumably, appellant's substantive claims will be confined to the validity of his plea, given his alleged incompetence, and counsel's alleged ineffectiveness in arranging and permitting the plea of an incompetent client. [7] Our holding today is consistent with our decision in Gamboa-Taylor, 562 Pa. 70 , 753 A.2d 780 .

2004Specifically, this case possesses a concreteness and immediacy that Haag lacked on the question of the after-discovered evidence exception: i.e., it does not involve a speculative future scenario, and the governing law is known. [6] Presumably, appellant's substantive claims will be confined to the validity of his plea, given his alleged incompetence, and counsel's alleged ineffectiveness in arranging and permitting the plea of an incompetent client. [7] Our holding today is consistent with our decision in Gamboa-Taylor, 562 Pa. 70 , 753 A.2d 780 .

2014The dissent emphasized that, before applying the after-discovered evidence test, the court must determine “whether [Castro] actually presented evidence that is ‘producible and admissible.’ ” Id., at 1250 (emphasis in original) (quoting Commonwealth v. Chamberlain, 612 Pa. 107 , 30 A.3d 381, 414 (2011)).

2012Before we reach the four-prong after-discovered evidence test, it is essential to discuss whether Appellant actually presented evidence that is “producible and admissible.” Chamberlain, 612 Pa. 107 , 30 A.3d at 414 .

2026Commonwealth v. Reeves, 296 A.3d 1228, 1232 (Pa. Super. 2023); 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2)(vi). [T]o prevail on an after-discovered evidence claim …, a petitioner must prove that (1) the exculpatory evidence has been discovered after trial and 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.

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). [T]o prevail on an after-discovered evidence claim for relief under subsection 9543(a)(2)(vi), a petitioner must prove that (1) the exculpatory evidence has been discovered after trial and 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.

2026It is well settled that when considering a claim of after-discovered evidence involving recanted testimony, “an appellate court may not interfere - 19 - J-E02004-25 with the … granting of a new trial where the sole ground is the alleged recantation of state witnesses unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Medina, 92 A.3d 1210, 1219 (Pa.Super. 2014) (en banc), appeal dismissed as improvidently granted, 636 Pa. 77 , 140 A.3d 675 (2016) (quoting Commonwealth v. McCracken, 540 Pa. 541, 549 , 659 A.2d 541, 545 (1995)) (brackets in original). “[W]e have emphasized that,

2025See Medina, supra. Regarding the first prong of the after-discovered evidence test, the Majority concludes that Hereford could not have obtained Ingram’s testimony with the exercise of due diligence for the purposes of satisfying the newly- discovered facts exception to the PCRA’s time bar.

2019Thus, the “new facts” exception at Section 9545(b)(1)(ii) does not require any merits analysis of an underlying after-discovered- evidence claim. -9- J-S27024-19 Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171 , 176–177 (Pa. Super. 2015) (some citations and quotation marks omitted, emphases in original), appeal denied, 125 A.3d 1197 (Pa. 2015).

2017See Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171, 177 (Pa. Super. 2015), appeal denied, 125 A.3d 1197 (Pa. 2015). (“[T]he ‘new facts’ exception at Section 9545(b)(1)(ii) does not require any merits analysis of an underlying after-discovered-evidence claim.”).

2024“The after-discovered evidence doctrine also applies to evidence discovered ____________________________________________ 2 While Appellant asserted in his PCRA petition that he was entitled to relief based on his allegation that Detective Morton had been under investigation for unspecified reasons, Appellant does not pursue that claim on appeal. -6- J-S16045-24 after a guilty plea that meets these four standards.” Commonwealth v. Mach Transp., LLC, 305 A.3d 22, 27 (Pa.Super. 2023) (citing Commonwealth v. Peoples, 319 A.2d 679, 681 (Pa. 1974)).

2022See Commonwealth v. Peoples, 456 Pa. 274 , 319 A.2d 679 , 681 (1974) (stating the four-part after-discovered evidence test applies whether the petitioner seeks the withdrawal of a guilty plea or a new trial); Commonwealth v. Heaster, 171 A.3d 268 , 273 n.6 (Pa.Super. 2017) (stating that, although a defendant’s “sentence resulted from a plea of guilty, rather than as a result of trial, any after-discovered evidence which would justify a new trial would also entitle a defendant to withdraw his guilty plea”) (quotation and quotation marks omitted)). -8- J-S31033-22 To obtain a new trial based on

2024See Commonwealth v. Johnson, 863 A.2d 423, 427 (Pa. 2004) (“The after- discovered evidence exception, however, focuses on newly discovered facts, not on a newly discovered or a newly willing source for previously known facts.”) (emphasis in original).

2017See Commonwealth v. Johnson, 863 A.2d 423, 427 (Pa. 2004) (“The after-discovered evidence exception, however, focuses on newly discovered facts, not on a newly discovered or a newly willing source for previously known facts.”) (emphasis in original).

2026Burton, 158 A.3d at 629 (to establish an after-discovered evidence claim under subsection 9543(a)(2)(vi), the petitioner must prove, inter alia, that the exculpatory evidence is not being offered solely to impeach credibility); see also Commonwealth v. Brown, 134 A.3d 1097, 1109 (Pa. Super. 2016) (upholding PCRA court’s rejection of Brown’s claim that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing regarding after- discovered evidence based on newspaper articles detailing the misconduct of two Philadelphia Police detectives in cases unrelated to Brown’s, where, absent proof that these two officers h

2022In Commonwealth v. Brown, 134 A.3d 1097 (Pa. Super. 2016), this Court rejected Brown’s claim that he deserved an after-discovered-evidence hearing based on two newspaper articles discussing the misconduct of Philadelphia Police Detectives Ronald Dove and James Pitts in unrelated cases.

2021Id. at 827 ; see also Commonwealth v. Brown, 141 A.3d 491, 500 (Pa. Super. 2016) (stating that, “[i]t is possible for a petitioner to plead and prove the newly-discovered fact exception, which gives the PCRA court jurisdiction and permits it to consider the petition on the merits, and then ultimately fail on the merits of an after-discovered evidence claim”).

2017In reaching this conclusion, the PCRA court “appear[s] to conflate the newly-discovered fact exception with an after-discovered evidence claim.” verdict if a new trial were granted.” Commonwealth v. Pagan, 950 A.2d 270, 292 (Pa. 2008) (citations omitted). -8- J-S71040-16 See Brown, 141 A.3d at 500 .

2024Commonwealth v. Cruz, … [ 852 A.2d 287, 293 ] ([Pa.] 2004)[; see also id. at 297 ] (holding that incompetence qualifies under the after-discovered evidence exception to the PCRA time- bar as long as the defendant files [a petition] within one year of regaining competency). [Appellant] alleged a low IQ, not ____________________________________________ 4 This argument was ostensibly raised at the PCRA hearing.

2024Commonwealth v. Cruz, … [ 852 A.2d 287, 293 ] ([Pa.] 2004)[; see also id. at 297 ] (holding that incompetence qualifies under the after-discovered evidence exception to the PCRA time- bar as long as the defendant files [a petition] within one year of regaining competency). [Appellant] alleged a low IQ, not ____________________________________________ 4 This argument was ostensibly raised at the PCRA hearing.