Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, affidavits, alleging two key Commonwealth witnesses perjured themselves at trial (a claim maintained by Abu-Jamal and, thus “known” to him
• holding that a claim based on inadmissible hearsay does not satisfy the “newly discovered fact” exception
• holding that a new conduit for a previously litigated claim does not qualify for the newly discovered fact exception
• holding that a claim based on inadmissible hearsay does not satisfy the “newly-discovered fact” exception
• concluding that alleging a new conduit for a previously known fact “does not transform [the] latest source into evidence falling within the ambit of § 9545(b)(1)(ii)”
• concluding that alleging a new conduit for a previously known fact “does not transform [the] latest source into evidence falling within the ambit of § 9545(b)(1)(ii)”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).