249 A.3d 1229
Pa. Super. Ct.2021Background
- In 1989 Melvin Howard was convicted of first-degree murder; jury sentenced him to death; conviction and sentence were affirmed in 1994.
- Howard filed multiple PCRA petitions; his death sentence was vacated by agreement in 2011 and he was resentenced to life without parole.
- On August 23, 2018 Howard filed a successive (third) PCRA petition relying largely on the June 25, 2018 Joint State Government Commission (JSGC) Report on capital punishment, alleging Batson-style racial discrimination in jury selection and claiming the Report constituted newly-discovered facts.
- The Commonwealth moved to dismiss as untimely; the PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and on September 11, 2019 dismissed the petition as untimely and without merit.
- The PCRA court concluded the JSGC Report did not contain newly-discovered facts because its underlying data was publicly available and the Report did not admit prosecutorial or case-specific error; the Superior Court affirmed, holding Howard could not invoke the §9545(b)(1)(ii) exception and therefore the court lacked jurisdiction to reach the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the JSGC Report constitutes "newly-discovered facts" under 42 Pa.C.S. §9545(b)(1)(ii) to overcome the one-year PCRA time bar | JSGC Report publicly admitted pervasive racial disparities in capital jury selection; its conclusions are novel, constitute new authoritative facts, and Howard filed within 60 days of the Report | The Report relied on pre-existing, public data; it contains recommendations and observations, not a prosecutorial admission or case-specific revelation; thus it is not a newly-discovered fact | The Report is not a newly-discovered fact under §9545(b)(1)(ii); petition is untimely and time bar not excused |
| Whether Howard is entitled to a new trial based on alleged racially discriminatory jury selection (Batson/state-constitutional claims) | Howard contends prosecutor struck disproportionately more Black jurors and systemic disparities shown by the JSGC Report support relief | Commonwealth and PCRA court argue timeliness jurisdictional defect bars merits review; the Report does not tie systemic findings to prosecutorial intent in Howard's case | Court did not reach the merits because the petition was untimely; merits claims were not addressed further |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 173 A.3d 617 (Pa. 2017) (FBI press release admitting widespread error in hair analysis can be a newly-discovered fact)
- Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 65 A.3d 339 (Pa. 2013) (publication summarizing public-domain criticisms of forensic method does not necessarily create new facts)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (explains requirements of §9545(b)(1)(ii): facts were unknown and could not have been learned with due diligence)
- Commonwealth v. Small, 189 A.3d 961 (Pa. 2018) (after-discovered-evidence standard and what may qualify as evidence of a higher grade or character)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171 (Pa. Super. 2015) (discusses newly-discovered-facts timeliness standard and due diligence)
- Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 833 A.2d 719 (Pa. 2003) (PCRA timeliness requirements are jurisdictional and preclude merits review if not met)