Com. v. Diggs, C.
2019 Pa. Super. 306
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2019Background:
- 1974: Linda DeBose was brutally stabbed; before dying she identified her attackers; Charles K. Diggs was eventually arrested, tried, and convicted of first-degree murder and related offenses.
- 1991 retrial followed a federal habeas grant based on a Batson jury-selection violation; at that retrial inmate Ricardo Kelsey testified that Diggs confessed while incarcerated.
- Diggs filed multiple PCRA petitions across decades; in 2016–2017 he alleged newly discovered medical examiner notes (contradicting the dying declaration location) and a recantation/after-discovered evidence that Kelsey lied.
- PCRA counsel obtained affidavits from inmates and an affidavit from Kelsey that defense investigators had solicited; the Commonwealth produced Kelsey testimony reaffirming his trial statements.
- The PCRA court held evidentiary hearings, found the medical-examiner materials untimely (no due diligence) and found Kelsey’s alleged recantation not credible; it dismissed the PCRA petition.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding Diggs failed to satisfy the PCRA timeliness/newly-discovered-fact requirements for the medical records claim and that the recantation was not credible, so no relief was warranted.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Diggs) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether suppressed medical-examiner records and contradiction of the victim’s dying declaration warrant relief under Brady / PCRA newly-discovered-fact exception | Medical examiner notes show the dying declaration occurred at hospital (not home); records were withheld by Commonwealth so Diggs couldn’t know earlier | Claim is untimely; trial counsel knew such records existed and Diggs lacked due diligence to obtain them earlier | Denied — court found Diggs failed to meet the newly-discovered fact exception (no due diligence); time-bar not overcome |
| 2) Whether Kelsey’s alleged recantation / jailhouse-informant credibility compels a new trial | Kelsey admitted (in affidavits and via inmate statements) that he lied at trial; this after-discovered evidence would likely change the verdict | Kelsey’s signed affidavit was solicited by defense investigator; at evidentiary hearing Kelsey reaffirmed his trial testimony; recantation lacked credibility | Denied — PCRA court credited Kelsey’s hearing testimony and found the recantation not credible, so no relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986) (race-based exclusion of jurors violates Equal Protection)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (U.S. 2012) (mandatory life-without-parole for juveniles unconstitutional)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecutor must disclose exculpatory evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 171 A.3d 675 (Pa. 2017) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (standards for newly-discovered facts and due diligence under PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 927 A.2d 586 (Pa. 2007) (elements for substantive after-discovered-evidence relief)
- Commonwealth v. Houck, 102 A.3d 443 (Pa.Super. 2014) (issues may be waived when necessary transcripts are not in the record)
- Commonwealth v. Rykard, 55 A.3d 1177 (Pa.Super. 2012) (appellate standard of review of PCRA factual findings)