Com. v. Rorrer, P.
1919 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 26, 2017Background
- Patricia Rorrer was convicted in 1998 of murdering Joann Katrinak and her infant son; mitochondrial and later nuclear DNA testing linked hairs from the victims’ car and a cigarette butt to Rorrer, and she made inculpatory statements when arrested.
- Three of six “seatback hairs” found on the victim’s car were mounted on slides and sent to the FBI in July 1995; Rorrer’s exemplar hairs were not taken until November 1995.
- Post-conviction DNA testing (Orchid) later matched all six seatback hairs and the cigarette butt to Rorrer; the fingernail fragment yielded no testable DNA.
- Rorrer filed multiple PCRA and §9543.1 DNA petitions over years; she obtained further documents via FOIA and asserted new theories (e.g., police switched her exemplar hairs for the seatback hairs, FBI reports showing hairs had “no roots,” unreliability of microscopic hair comparison, recantation/perjury claims by witnesses).
- The PCRA court dismissed her 2015 petition as untimely under the PCRA one-year rule; the Superior Court affirmed, finding Rorrer failed to meet exceptions for newly discovered evidence or due diligence and that many claims were previously litigated or untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rorrer) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "miscarriage of justice" excuse allows review of serial untimely PCRA petition | Miscarriage-of-justice standard should permit a hearing on serial petitions | Pennsylvania law requires timeliness; miscarriage-of-justice does not override PCRA time bar | Rejected: miscarriage-of-justice does not obviate timeliness requirement (petition untimely) |
| Whether FBI FOIA reports (showing hairs with "no roots") qualify as newly discovered evidence under §9545(b)(1)(ii) | She received FBI reports in 2015 and filed within 60 days; could not have learned earlier | Reports dated mid-1990s; Rorrer knew FBI tested hairs at trial and failed to exercise due diligence | Rejected: not new; she could have obtained reports earlier and failed to exercise due diligence |
| Whether claim that microscopic hair-comparison evidence is inadmissible is timely | Relies on April 2015 FBI press release about hair analysis error; filed within statutory window after discovery | Such challenges to hair-comparison admissibility were publicly known earlier; claim untimely under §9545(b)(2) and controlled by Edmiston | Rejected: untimely under Edmiston; many studies predate 2015 so claim not filed within required 60 days |
| Whether witness statements/affidavits (York, Traupman) or alleged Kicska perjury/newly discovered evidence warrant a new trial | York: affidavit says Kicska admitted perjury; Traupman: witness statements withheld; these would change verdict | York told defense in 1999; Traupman’s statements were previously considered/discredited; DNA and other evidence (Orchid results, cigarette butt, confession, mother hiding gun) make new-trial relief unlikely | Rejected: statements not newly discovered or were previously litigated; no reasonable probability of different result |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Burton, 936 A.2d 521 (Pa. 2007) (timeliness requirement for PCRA petitions; miscarriage-of-justice does not bypass time bar)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (courts will consider miscarriage-of-justice only when petition is timely)
- Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 65 A.3d 339 (Pa. 2013) (challenge to microscopic hair comparison evidence must be timely; public knowledge of flaws predates PCRA filing)
- Commonwealth v. Burton, 158 A.3d 618 (Pa. 2017) (due diligence standard for newly discovered evidence exception)
- Commonwealth v. Cox, 146 A.3d 221 (Pa. 2016) (due diligence requires reasonable effort, not perfection)
- Commonwealth v. Lesko, 15 A.3d 345 (Pa. 2011) (ineffective assistance of counsel does not excuse PCRA time bar)
- Commonwealth v. Crews, 863 A.2d 498 (Pa. 2004) (ineffective assistance claims not an exception to PCRA timeliness)
- Commonwealth v. Pagan, 950 A.2d 270 (Pa. 2008) (standard for after-discovered evidence to warrant new trial)
- Commonwealth v. Foreman, 55 A.3d 532 (Pa. Super. 2012) (after-discovered evidence must probably produce a different verdict)