Legal Opinion · Dissent

Commonwealth v. Castro

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 5, 2012Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION BY

STEVENS, P.J.

Although Appellant claims to be entitled to a new trial based on after-discovered evidence, his sole proffer was a newspaper article that contains mere allegations of Officer Richard Cujdik’s misconduct which do not constitute evidence. Moreover, as Appellant asks us to speculate on what evidence he will be able to present at an evidentiary hearing, it cannot be determined if this potential “evidence” would be used for any other purpose than to impeach Officer Richard Cujdik’s credibility. For these reasons, one must conclude that Appellant failed to satisfy…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. ChamberlainSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
  2. Commonwealth v. EsteppSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
  3. Commonwealth v. SmithSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  4. Commonwealth v. McAdooSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
  5. Commonwealth v. RiveraSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API