Commonwealth v. Pander

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that appellant’s ineffectiveness claim had no arguable merit where the trial court conducted a -7- J-S33044-22 thorough colloquy regarding appellant’s decision not to testify, not to call fact witnesses, and to present only one character witness
• holding the PCRA petitioner must establish there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of his trial would have been different had trial counsel interviewed a witness prior to trial
• noting that regarding the failure of counsel to interview a witness, “the petitioner must prove: (i) the witness existed; (ii) the witness was available to testify; (iii) counsel knew of, or should have known of, the existence of the witness; (iv
• “a failure to investigate and interview a witness claim overlaps with declining to call a witness”
• ineffectiveness claim for failure to call witnesses fails where “the colloquy conclusively establishes that Appellant agreed with trial counsel’s decision not to present additional witnesses”
• “While Hale and the cases discussed therein involved juror challenges prior to trial, we find the discussion therein apt ....”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).