Skip to main content

Com. v. Reeves, G.

Citations

  • 296 A.3d 1228
  • 2023 Pa. Super. 98

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that newspaper articles referencing misconduct by detectives in matters unrelated to appellant’s case cannot constitute newly discovered facts
  • holding that newspaper articles referencing misconduct by police officers in matters unrelated to the PCRA petitioner’s case do not constitute newly discovered facts
  • holding that evidence that detectives who participated in appellant’s case committed misconduct in unrelated case does not satisfy newly discovered fact exception because it was not new facts related to appellant’s case
  • holding allegations of police -8- J-A08030-26 misconduct committed in other cases do not meet the requirements for the timeliness exceptions in the petitioner’s case
  • explaining that newspaper articles referencing misconduct by Philadelphia detectives in matters unrelated to Reeves do not constitute newly-discovered facts; Reeves cites no new information in his case
  • general allegations of misconduct by district attorney’s office, unrelated to petitioner’s case, insufficient to demonstrate governmental interference

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Murray, J.

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

1 case in this archive cites this case.

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.