Commonwealth v. Conway
14 A.3d 101
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Appellant Conway seeks post-conviction DNA testing under PCRA §9543.1 for items related to the 1987 murder prosecution.
- Trial evidence was largely circumstantial; there was no direct DNA link tying Conway to the crime scene or victim.
- DNA testing was denied by the PCRA court on the basis that Conway failed to show a prima facie case of actual innocence.
- The court acknowledged that, for testing, the evidence could be tested for exculpatory results
- The court considered doctrines of “actual innocence” from Schlup and held the statute should be liberally construed to benefit the wrongly convicted.
- The Superior Court reverses, holding testing is warranted given the nature of the evidence and the remedial purpose of the DNA statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is a reasonable possibility testing would prove actual innocence | Conway argues testing could reveal third-party DNA or exculpatory results | Commonwealth argues results would be speculative and not exculpatory | Yes; testing may exculpate and the court must order |
| Whether data-bank and redundancy theories support testing | Conway relies on data-bank matching and redundancy to show a separate suspect | Commonwealth contends such theories are speculative and improper | Yes; data-bank/redundancy theories considered viable under §9543.1 |
| Whether the DNA testing statute should be liberally construed as remedial | Remedial statute should favor testing to prevent wrongful conviction | Statute should not yield to fishing expeditions or frivolous claims | Yes; statute interpreted liberally to aid the wrongly convicted |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Brooks, 875 A.2d 1141 (Pa. Super. 2005) (sets prima facie standard for DNA testing under PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Heilman, 867 A.2d 542 (Pa. Super. 2005) (defines actual innocence standard under Schlup framework)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 889 A.2d 582 (Pa. Super. 2005) (data-bank argument not dispositive; caution against speculative testing)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) (actual innocence standard: more likely than not no reasonable juror would convict)
- Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245 (Pa. Super. 2003) (DNA evidence from ligature; relevance to DNA testing)
- Mollett, 5 A.3d 291 (Pa. Super. 2010) (recognizes data-bank use in investigations)