Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 619 Pa. 549

Edmiston was convicted of first-degree murder, rape and related offenses in 1989 and sentenced to death.
Appellant filed a first PCRA in 1996 which was denied; he later filed a second PCRA petition in June 2005 and amended/supplemented it through 2009.
The PCRA court dismissed most claims as untimely, except a NAS Report-based hair analysis claim deemed timely, and denied merits in 2010.
Appellant also filed a motion for post-conviction DNA testing under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543.1, which the PCRA court denied in 2009.
On appeal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the denial of relief, including the DNA testing petition, primarily on timeliness grounds and lack of demonstration of actual innocence.
Justice Todd filed a concurring opinion addressing timeliness of the NAS hair analysis claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of the Second PCRA petition	Edmiston relies on 9545(b)(1)(i)/(ii) and 60-day rule	Commonwealth argues untimely; exceptions not satisfied	Untimely; no applicable exception
Coroner’s photographs discovery and timeliness	Discovery withheld; government interference and due diligence excuses	Trial counsel knew of photographs; diligence insufficient	Untimely; not saved by governmental interference or earlier unknown facts
NAS hair analysis facts and 9545(b)(1)(ii)	NAS Report presented new facts undermining hair-evidence	Facts were public-domain and discoverable; not newly unknown	Not timely under 9545(b)(1)(ii) (facts public-domain) or (h) alternative
Post-conviction discovery under Rule 902(E)	Exceptional circumstances warrant discovery due to innocence evidence	Untimely and not shown as exceptional circumstances	Abuse of discretion to grant discovery; claims untimely
Post-conviction DNA testing timeliness under 9543.1(d)(l)(iii)	Motion timely; advances in science and serial PCRA context support timeliness	Untimely; intended to delay execution; years after conviction	Untimely as a matter of law; motion not for actual innocence and timely

Edmiston I, 634 A.2d 1078 (Pa. 1993) (recounts conviction and trial evidence on heinous crimes)
Edmiston II, 851 A.2d 883 (Pa. 2004) (PCRA relief denied; later timeliness issues)
Stokes, 959 A.2d 306 (Pa. 2008) (due diligence standards for exceptions to time bar)
Abu-Jamal, 941 A.2d 1263 (Pa. 2008) (government interference and discovery prerequisites)
Hawkins, 953 A.2d 1248 (Pa. 2006) (due diligence requirement for unknown facts)
Marshall, 947 A.2d 720 (Pa. 2008) (due diligence and discovery)
Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091 (Pa. 2010) (60-day rule for newly discovered facts)
Breakiron, 781 A.2d 94 (Pa. 2001) (jurisdictional timeliness rule for PCRA)
Beasley, 741 A.2d 1258 (Pa. 1999) (timeliness burden on petitioner)
Wharton, 886 A.2d 1120 (Pa. 2005) (timeliness cannot be avoided by constitutional claims)
Fisher, 870 A.2d 864 (Pa. 2005) (newly available evidence analysis; relevance to timeliness)
Lark, 746 A.2d 585 (Pa. 2000) (facts not public record; must be unknown)
Whitney, 817 A.2d 473 (Pa. 2003) (public records limit claims under (b)(1)(ii))
Wright, 14 A.3d 798 (Pa. 2011) (DNA testing preclusion of confession overturned)
Young, 873 A.2d 720 (Pa. 2005) (confession-based DNA testing not a bar to testing)
Scarborough, 9 A.3d 206 (Pa. 2010) (timeliness of DNA testing motions considered in context)
Williams, 899 A.2d 1060 (Pa. 2006) (timing of post-trial DNA testing cautions)
Fisher (Fisher), 582 Pa. 276 (Pa. 2005) (reliance on Academy article; timeliness analysis)