Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Commonwealth, Aplt v. Williams, T.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 15, 2014No. 668 CAP, 669 CAPPublished

1ConcurrenceChief Justice Castille

I join the Majority Opinion. Indeed, in my view, both the Brady1 claim appellee initially raised, and the Brady claim later uncovered by the PCRA2 court and upon which the court granted relief, are time-barred and frivolous. I write separately to expand upon the Majority discussion, and to address the important responsibilities of the PCRA trial courts in serial capital PCRA matters, an issue brought into stark relief by the extraordinary, and unauthorized, measures undertaken by the PCRA court in this case.

Preliminarily, with respect to the latter concern, I note that this is a case…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  3. Williams v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  4. United States v. BagleySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  5. Kyles v. WhitleySupreme Court of the United States · 1995

23 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