Com. v. Maxwell, E., 232 A.3d 739

Eric Maxwell was convicted in 1984 of first‑degree murder, robbery, and assault and received life without parole for murder; direct appeals concluded by 1990.
Maxwell filed multiple post‑conviction petitions and federal habeas petitions over the years, repeatedly raising Batson‑type claims that the prosecutor excluded Black jurors.
On July 9, 2016 Maxwell’s brother, Brian, during their first one‑on‑one visit in decades, told Maxwell he had overheard the prosecutor say in 1984 that he did not expect any African‑Americans on the jury.
Maxwell filed a fourth PCRA petition in 2012 (amended 2016) invoking the § 9545(b)(1)(ii) newly‑discovered fact exception based on Brian’s 2016 statement.
A Dauphin County judge initially found the newly‑discovered fact exception satisfied and ordered a merits hearing; a subsequent out‑of‑county judge revisited jurisdiction, found Brian not credible, and dismissed the petition as untimely.
The Superior Court ultimately held that Brian’s statement, even if credited, was merely a newly‑willing corroborative source for claims Maxwell had raised in prior petitions and therefore did not satisfy § 9545(b)(1)(ii); the dismissal was affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Brian’s July 9, 2016 statement is a “newly‑discovered fact” under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii)	Maxwell: Brian’s statement is a new fact that was unknown to him and triggers the 60‑day exception, allowing review of a Batson‑type claim	Commonwealth: The statement is only a new source corroborating facts Maxwell already knew/raised; not a new fact for § 9545(b)(1)(ii)	Held: Statement is only a corroborative source for previously raised Batson claims and does not satisfy § 9545(b)(1)(ii); petition untimely and dismissed
Whether the coordinate‑jurisdiction rule barred re‑examination of the initial jurisdictional finding	Maxwell: Initial finding of jurisdiction should stand	Commonwealth: Re‑examination permissible where prior ruling is clearly erroneous or jurisdiction lacking	Held: Because Brian’s statement cannot as a matter of law be a new fact, re‑examination by the second judge was not barred or determinative; dismissal stands

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (peremptory strikes may not be used to exclude jurors on racial grounds)
Commonwealth v. Marshall, 947 A.2d 714 (Pa. 2008) (§ 9545(b)(1)(ii) focuses on newly discovered facts, not new sources)
Commonwealth v. Abu‑Jamal, 941 A.2d 1263 (Pa. 2008) (new witness corroboration does not convert previously known facts into newly discovered facts under § 9545(b)(1)(ii))
Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (statutory requirements for newly discovered facts and due diligence)
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 863 A.2d 423 (Pa. 2004) (rejecting claim that a newly willing source made previously available facts "new")
Commonwealth v. Robinson, 185 A.3d 1055 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en banc) (clarifying that § 9545(b)(1)(ii) is about facts, not newly willing sources)
Zane v. Friends Hospital, 836 A.2d 25 (Pa. 2003) (coordinate jurisdiction rule explained)