Commonwealth v. D'Amato
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION
Justice CASTILLE.
I join the Majority Opinion, except with respect to its resolution of appellant’s after-discovered evidence claim involving William Boyle’s alleged “recantation.”1 Because I believe that this claim is resolvable now, and fails, I respectfully dissent from that portion of the opinion which orders a remand for review of Boyle’s new statement.
After-discovered evidence claims may arise far earlier in a criminal matter than upon review under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. § 9541, et seq. Indeed, new evidence may be found in time…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Commonwealth v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
- Commonwealth v. McGillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Commonwealth v. Abu-JamalSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
- Commonwealth v. YarrisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
- Commonwealth v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.