Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 11/22/2017

Commonwealth v. Chmiel, D., Aplt.

Citations

173 A.3d 617

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that the petitioner established the applicability of Section 9545(b) when he filed a petition within sixty days of a newspaper report about the FBI press release
concluding the FBI’s 2015 press release on hair analysis testimony contained information not in the public domain prior to its release and constituted new evidence
noting that facts previously known to the petitioner but presented through a new source do not make out the factual predicate for § 9545(b)(1)(ii)
finding that an FBI admission that use of hair analysis was not scientifically reliable constituted a newly discovery fact for purpose of Section 9545
holding FBI’s concession of widespread error in microscopic hair analysis constituted newly-discovered fact and date of FBI’s concession triggered statutory window to submit timely PCRA claim
relating that the FBI’s 2015 revelation that it had trained many state and local analysts to provide scientifically flawed opinions in state criminal trials was an after-discovered fact establishing jurisdiction over Appellant’s serial post-conviction petition

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Saylor, Baer, Todd, Donohue, Dougherty, Wecht, Mundy

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

27 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

20 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Commonwealth v. Chmiel, D., Aplt.

4 other CourtListener records share this case name.

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.