2013 Pa. Super. 1 - Commonwealth v. Perrin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A post-sentence motion for a new trial on the ground of after-discovered evidence must be filed in writing promptly after such discovery.” Pa.R.Crim. P. 720(C). “[Ajfter-discovered evidence discovered during the direct appeal process must be raised promptly during the direct appeal process, and should include a request for a remand to the trial judge....” Pa.R.Crim.P. 720, Comment. Having determined that Appellant has followed the proper procedure, we turn to the merits of his request for relief. To obtain relief based on after-discovered evidence, appellant must demonstrate that the evidence: (1) could not have been obtained prior to the conclusion of the trial by the exercise of reasonable diligence; (2) is not merely corroborative or cumulative; (3) will not be used solely to impeach the credibility of a witness; and (4) would likely result in a different verdict if a new trial were granted. Commonwealth v. Montalvo, 604 Pa. 386 , 986 A.2d 84, 109 (2009) (quoting Commonwealth v. Pagan, 597 Pa. 69 , 950 A.2d 270, 292 (2008)). The Commonwealth does not contend that Appellant failed to exercise reasonable diligence in discovering Brown’s evidence prior to the conclusion of trial. With Brown informing the FBI of Perry’s statements about Appellant’s innocence months after Appellant was sentenced, we are satisfied that Appellant has met the first prong of the after-discovered evidence test. Further, as no evidence was offered at trial to demonstrate that Appellant did not parti”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2015 Pa. Super. 4 - Commonwealth v. Perrin

2. “In practice, the third and fourth prescribed inquires tend to collapse into each other. The fourth question, regarding the likelihood of a different result, tends to dominate the entire inquiry. I will go one step further and suggest that the second factor, concerning whether the after-discovered evidence in question would be merely cumulative, similarly is subsumed by the question of prejudice.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Small, E., Aplt.

3. “I believe that what we have called a four-prong test is really only a three[-]prong [ ] test. Prong # 3, the 'only for impeachment' prong, is just an extension of Prong # 4, that the new evidence would not affect the outcome. Normally, evidence that just would tend to impeach what a witness said would not change the outcome at a new trial.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Small, E., Aplt.