2011 Pa. Super. 7 - Commonwealth v. Conway’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) Motion.— (1) An individual convicted of a criminal offense in a court of this Commonwealth and serving a term of imprisonment or awaiting execution because of a sentence of death -may apply by making a written motion to the sentencing court for the performance of forensic DNA testing on specific evidence that is related to, the investigation-or-.prosecution that resulted in the judgment of conviction. (2) The evidence may have been discovered either prior to or after the applicant’s conviction. The evidence shall be available for testing as of the 'date of the motion. If the evidence was discovered prior to the applicant’s conviction, the evidence shall not have been subject to the DNA testing requested because the technology" for testing was not in existence, at the time of the trial or the applicant’s counsel ■ did not seek testing at the time of the trial in a case where a verdict was rendered on or before January 1, 1995, or the applicant’s counsel sought funds from the court to pay for the testing because his- client was indigent and the court refused the request despite the cliéht’s indigency. [[Image here]] (c) Requirements. — In any motion under subsection (a), under penalty of perjury, the applicant shall: (l)(i) specify the evidence to.be tested; • (ii) state that the applicant consents to provide samples of bodily fluid for use in the DNA testing; and acknowledge that the applicant understands that, if the motion is granted, any data obtained from .any DNA samp”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2015 Pa. Super. 272 - In Re: Payne, J., III Appeal of: Com. of Pa · Commonwealth v. Kunco

2. “. Here, ... the evidence produced at trial, with the exception of the testimony of the jailhouse informant, was wholly circumstantial, and there was no prior history between the parties that would have suggested the occurrence of the violent incident that resulted in the decedent’s death. Moreover, the victim’s hands were tied with a cloth that would have most likely been in contact with the assailant’s hands, and her clothing was ripped in such a way that indicated extensive contact with the hands of her assailant. Additionally, the investigators at the scene collected a multitude of sample material from the victim under the belief that she may have had contact with the skin of her assailant. Thus, there is no question that the development of additional evidence — evidence that can be easily obtained by DNA testing — will add to the reliability of the reconstruction of the events of that tragic day. The question that we must here confront is whether, in this situation, the Pennsylvania DNA testing statute should be interpreted in such a way as to prevent the comparison of easily obtainable test results with known data banks for the purpose of determining the person responsible for the crime in question. To pose the question is to provide the answer, for in this evolving world of. increased DNA data collections, and the increased reliance thereon by law enforcement agencies, we should not summarily preclude defense counsel from , using the data compiled in those “banks” to ar”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2015 Pa. Super. 272 - In Re: Payne, J., III Appeal of: Com. of Pa

3. “(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the court shall order the testing requested in a motion under subsection (a) ... upon a determination, after review of the record of the applicant’s trial, that the: (i) requirements of subsection (c) have been met; • (ii) evidence to be tested has been subject to a chain of custody sufficient to establish that it has not been altered in any material respect; and (iii) motion is made, in a timely manner and for the purpose of . demonstrating the applicant’s actual innocence and not to delay the execution of sentence or administration of justice. (2) The court shall not order the testing requested in a motion under subsection (a) if, after review of the record of the applicant’s trial, the court determines that there is no reasonable possibility that the testing would produce exculpatory evidence that: (i) would establish the applicant’s actual innocence of the offense for which the applicant was convicted[.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Kunco