Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1/11/2011

Commonwealth v. Conway

Citations

14 A.3d 101
2011 Pa. Super. 7
2011 Pa. Super. LEXIS 7
2011 WL 80248

How courts have described this case

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

explaining that the one-year time bar of Section 9545 does not apply to a motion filed under Section 9543.1
referring to a reviewing court’s “probabilistic determination about what reasonable, properly instructed jurors would do” in the face of the new evidence
characterizing DNA evidence as constituting “direct evidence” of the identity of an assailant
“[T]he statutory language requires reviewing courts to evaluate the ‘actual innocence of the offense’ component by ‘assuming exculpatory results’ will be obtained from the proposed testing.”
explaining the ‘data bank’ theory

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Donohue, McEWEN, Ott

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

16 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

14 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Commonwealth v. Conway

13 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.