10 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 2017–2024 7 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. D'Amatogreen2 sentences2024Once the PCRA court’s jurisdiction has been properly invoked by a petition that was timely filed or satisfies one of the PCRA timeliness exceptions, a petitioner raising a claim of after-discovered evidence must prove that “(1) the -6- J-S02040-24 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.” Burton, 158 A.3d at 629 (quoting Commonwealth v. D'Amato, 856 A.2d 806 2024Once the PCRA court’s jurisdiction has been properly invoked by a petition that was timely filed or satisfies one of the PCRA timeliness exceptions, a petitioner raising a claim of after-discovered evidence must prove that “(1) the -6- J-S02040-24 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.” Burton, 158 A.3d at 629 (quoting Commonwealth v. D'Amato, 856 A.2d 806 | 3 | 3 |
Thach v. Abington Memorial Hospitalgreen2 sentences2023A petitioner raising this exception “must explain why he could not have learned the new fact(s) earlier with the exercise of due diligence.” Id. (citations omitted). 2023A petitioner raising this exception “must explain why he could not have learned the new fact(s) earlier with the exercise of due diligence.” Id. at 176 (citations omitted). | 3 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Gribblegreen1 sentence2018The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has provided that "as a general and practical matter, it is more difficult for a defendant to prevail on a claim litigated through the lens of counsel ineffectiveness, rather than as a preserved claim of trial court error." Commonwealth v. Spotz, 84A.3d 294, 315 (Pa. 2014) (citing Commonwealth v. Gribble, 863 A.2d 455, 472 (Pa. 2004)). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Charlestongreen1 sentence2018Significantly, a Petitioner raising a claim of ineffectiveness must demonstrate actual prejudice-vthat is, "that counsel's ineffectiveness was of such magnitude that it 'could have reasonably had an adverse effect on the outcome of the proceedings."' Commonwealth v. Charleston, 94 A.3d 1012, 1019 (Pa.Super. 2014) (quoting Pierce, 527 A.2d at 977). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. Madenspacher
green
2 sentences2024Once the PCRA court’s jurisdiction has been properly invoked by a petition that was timely filed or satisfies one of the PCRA timeliness exceptions, a petitioner raising a claim of after-discovered evidence must prove that “(1) the -6- J-S02040-24 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.” Burton, 158 A.3d at 629 (quoting Commonwealth v. D'Amato, 856 A.2d 806 2024Once the PCRA court’s jurisdiction has been properly invoked by a petition that was timely filed or satisfies one of the PCRA timeliness exceptions, a petitioner raising a claim of after-discovered evidence must prove that “(1) the -6- J-S02040-24 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.” Burton, 158 A.3d at 629 (quoting Commonwealth v. D'Amato, 856 A.2d 806 | 3 | 2023–2024 |
Commonwealth v. Michaud
green
1 sentence2024Generally, there are three elements a petitioner raising such a claim must prove: (1) the underlying claim has arguable merit; “(2) counsel had no reasonable strategic basis for his or her action or inaction; and (3) counsel’s ineffectiveness prejudiced him.” Id. (cleaned up). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Commonwealth v. Pagan
green
2 sentences2018PCRA Ct. Op. at 13, citing Commonwealth v. Pagan, 597 Pa. 69 , 950 A.2d 270 , 292 (2008) (additional citations omitted). 2018PCRA Ct. Op. at 13, citing Commonwealth v. Pagan, 597 Pa. 69 , 950 A.2d 270 , 292 (2008) (additional citations omitted). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Commonwealth v. Jones
green
1 sentence2017Id. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.