Title
Urging the Pennsylvania General Assembly to amend Pennsylvania's Post Conviction Relief Act so that reliable evidence of innocence may be considered to prove that a person who is convicted of a crime is, in fact, not guilty.
Body
WHEREAS, Judge John Bender wrote a concurring statement in Commonwealth vs. Eric Riddick, No. 3480EDA 2016, in which he stated, "I write separately only to express my utmost displeasure with the Post Conviction Relief Act's failure to facilitate justice in this case, where it is clear to all that it is likely that an innocent man sits behind bars for no better reason than a poorly conceived statute. No system of justice is perfect. However, a system of criminal justice that prevents the correction of obvious errors is easily improved - if only the legislature could see fit to do it." Former Justice James Fitzgerald, specially assigned to Superior Court, joined in this concurring statement; and
WHEREAS, A person convicted of a crime in Philadelphia may file a Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) petition to appeal their conviction; and
WHEREAS, There are limited grounds for appeal pursuant to 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Sec. 9541 et. Seq., two of which are ineffective assistance of counsel and newly discovered evidence; and
WHEREAS, The PCRA unjustly punishes persons for the negligence of their counsel and/or the person's inability to comply with a very brief time limit in which to file a petition because of newly discovered evidence; and
WHEREAS, In order to prove ineffective assistance of counsel, the petitioner must meet a three-pronged test: the claim must have arguable merit, the act or omission did not reasonably advance the interest of the petitioner, and but for the act or omission, the petitioner probably would have been found not guilty; and
WHEREAS, In order for counsel's representation to be unreasonable, the petitioner must prove that "no competent lawyer" would have acted in the same manner. This standard al...
Click here for full text