Commonwealth v. Hereford

Summary

This is a dissenting opinion by President Judge Lazarus in Commonwealth v. Hereford concerning the denial of a petition under Pennsylvania's Post Conviction Relief Act. The dissent concludes that the PCRA court's credibility findings regarding newly discovered eyewitness testimony were unsupported by the record and would reverse the order and remand for a new trial.

Holdings

1. The dissent would conclude that the PCRA court's finding that Ingram was not credible was unsupported by the record because the court relied on a cursory analysis and facts not supported by the trial transcript.
2. The dissent would conclude that Ingram's testimony met all four requirements for after-discovered evidence: it could not have been obtained earlier with due diligence, was not merely cumulative or corroborative, was not offered solely to impeach, and would likely produce a different verdict.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the PCRA court's finding that Quentin Ingram was not credible was supported by the record.
2. Whether Ingram's testimony satisfied the four-prong test for after-discovered evidence warranting a new trial.
3. Whether the newly discovered testimony would likely result in a different verdict.

Disposition

affirmed