Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 2003–2024 2 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. McCrackengreen2 sentences2017See Commonwealth v. McCracken, 540 Pa. 541 , 659 A.2d 541, 545 (1995) (concluding that recantation testimony qualified as after-discovered evidence because the witness identified the defendant at the preliminary hearing and trial unequivocally, which “foreclosed the possibility that defense counsel could have persuaded [the witness] to change his statement concerning the identity of the perpetrator prior to the close of trial.”); Commonwealth v. Cobbs, 759 A.2d 932 , 934– 35 (Pa. Super. 2000) (concluding that variations in officers’ identification testimony elicited during a civil case deposit 2017See Commonwealth v. McCracken, 540 Pa. 541 , 659 A.2d 541, 545 (1995) (concluding that recantation testimony qualified as after-discovered evidence because the witness identified the defendant at the preliminary hearing and trial unequivocally, which “foreclosed the possibility that defense counsel could have persuaded [the witness] to change his statement concerning the identity of the perpetrator prior to the close of trial.”); Commonwealth v. Cobbs, 759 A.2d 932 , 934– 35 (Pa. Super. 2000) (concluding that variations in officers’ identification testimony elicited during a civil case deposit | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Cobbsgreen2 sentences2017See Commonwealth v. McCracken, 540 Pa. 541 , 659 A.2d 541, 545 (1995) (concluding that recantation testimony qualified as after-discovered evidence because the witness identified the defendant at the preliminary hearing and trial unequivocally, which “foreclosed the possibility that defense counsel could have persuaded [the witness] to change his statement concerning the identity of the perpetrator prior to the close of trial.”); Commonwealth v. Cobbs, 759 A.2d 932 , 934– 35 (Pa. Super. 2000) (concluding that variations in officers’ identification testimony elicited during a civil case deposit 2014See Commonwealth v. McCracken, 540 Pa. 541 , 659 A.2d 541, 545 (1995) (concluding that recantation testimony qualified as after-discovered evidence because the witness identified the defendant at the preliminary hearing and trial unequivocally, which “foreclosed the possibility that defense counsel could have persuaded [the witness] to change his statement concerning the identity of the perpetrator prior to the close of trial.”); Commonwealth v. Cobbs, 759 A.2d 932, 934-35 (Pa.Super.2000) (concluding that variations in officers’ identification testimony elicited during a civil case deposition | 1 | 2 |
Duboise, R., Aplt. v. Smith, K.green1 sentence2021See Reid, 235 A.3d at 1140. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Cox, J., Aplt.green1 sentence2018See Cox, 146 A.3d at 228 . | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. D'Amatogreen1 sentence2015See D’ Amato, supra. Finally, the evidence simply was not exculpatory. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylorgreen2 sentences2004We rejected the claim, holding that "subsequent counsel’s review of previous counsel’s representation and a conclusion that previous counsel was ineffective is not a newly discovered 'fact' entitling Appellant to the benefit of the exception.” Id. at 785. 2004We rejected the claim, holding that "subsequent counsel's review of previous counsel's representation and a conclusion that previous counsel was ineffective is not a newly discovered `fact' entitling Appellant to the benefit of the exception." Id. at 785. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Masonyellow2 sentences2003In Commonwealth v. Mason, 559 Pa. 500, 517-18 , 741 A.2d 708, 717-18 (1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 829 , 121 S.Ct. 81 , 148 L.Ed.2d 43 (2000), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed an after-discovered claim that was presented in the same procedural posture as the present case. .It is "the duty and obligation” of the Superi- or Court "to follow the decisional law” of the Supreme Court. 2003In Commonwealth v. Mason, 559 Pa. 500, 517-18 , 741 A.2d 708, 717-18 (1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 829 , 121 S.Ct. 81 , 148 L.Ed.2d 43 (2000), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed an after-discovered claim that was presented in the same procedural posture as the present case. .It is "the duty and obligation” of the Superi- or Court "to follow the decisional law” of the Supreme Court. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Shaffergreen2 sentences2003Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 557 Pa. 453, 460, n. 6 , 734 A.2d 840, 844, n. 6 (1999). 2003Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 557 Pa. 453, 460, n. 6 , 734 A.2d 840, 844, n. 6 (1999). | 1 | 1 |
Mason v. Pennsylvaniagreen2 sentences2003In Commonwealth v. Mason, 559 Pa. 500, 517-18 , 741 A.2d 708, 717-18 (1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 829 , 121 S.Ct. 81 , 148 L.Ed.2d 43 (2000), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed an after-discovered claim that was presented in the same procedural posture as the present case. .It is "the duty and obligation” of the Superi- or Court "to follow the decisional law” of the Supreme Court. 2003In Commonwealth v. Mason, 559 Pa. 500, 517-18 , 741 A.2d 708, 717-18 (1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 829 , 121 S.Ct. 81 , 148 L.Ed.2d 43 (2000), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed an after-discovered claim that was presented in the same procedural posture as the present case. .It is "the duty and obligation” of the Superi- or Court "to follow the decisional law” of the Supreme Court. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Hudsongreen1 sentence2003See Commonwealth v. Hudson, 820 A.2d 720 (Pa.Super.2003) (claim of ineffective assistance of counsel raised in timely post-sentence motion may be considered on direct appeal from judgment of sentence). [6] This not to say, however, that appellant could not make out a claim of layered ineffectiveness in an ensuing PCRA proceeding. [7] In Commonwealth v. Mason, 559 Pa. 500, 517-18 , 741 A.2d 708, 717-18 (1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 829 , 121 S.Ct. 81 , 148 L.Ed.2d 43 (2000), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed an after-discovered claim that was presented in the same procedural posture as | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Small, E., Aplt.
green
2 sentences2024In defining that rule, our Supreme Court affirmed that “after-discovered evidence is merely corroborative or cumulative - and thus not sufficient to support the grant of a new trial - if it is of the same character and to the same material point as evidence already adduced at trial.” Id. at 973-974 . “[T]he terms ‘of the same character’ and ‘to the same point’ refer to distinct qualities of evidence; to be ‘merely corroborative or cumulative,’ [after-]discovered evidence must tend to prove material facts that were already in evidence at trial, and also be of the same grade or character of evid 2024The Small Court further stated that “whether evidence is labeled ‘corroborative’ or ‘cumulative’ is not critical to the after-discovered analysis” as the rule for “determining whether [the second] prong of the - 13 - after-discovered evidence test has been met applies equally to evidence that is corroborative, cumulative, or both.” Id. at 972-973 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Commonwealth v. Foreman
green
1 sentence2018In Conley, however, this Court did not reach the merits of the after-discovered claim, but rather remanded for an evidentiary hearing at which Conley would have the opportunity to meet the criteria summarized in Foreman, supra. Here, Johnson already had this same opportunity at the PCRA hearing. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Commonwealth v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2018Similarly, although Johnson correctly cites to our Supreme Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Johnson, 966 A.2d 523 (Pa. 2009), he fails to acknowledge that PCRA court’s failure to assess the credibility of the defense witnesses’ testimony presented at the evidentiary hearing “constitute[d] legal error.” Johnson, 966 A.2d at 525 . 2018Similarly, although Johnson correctly cites to our Supreme Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Johnson, 966 A.2d 523 (Pa. 2009), he fails to acknowledge that PCRA court’s failure to assess the credibility of the defense witnesses’ testimony presented at the evidentiary hearing “constitute[d] legal error.” Johnson, 966 A.2d at 525 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.