*1 14A.3d 798 Pennsylvania, Appellee COMMONWEALTH v.
Anthony WRIGHT, Appellant. Supreme Pennsylvania. Court of Argued April 2009. Decided Feb. *3 Morrison, Vice, R. Rodrigues, Sondra Nina Pro Hac for Anthony Wright. Banks, Jr.,
Michael L. Cooney, J. Gordon Maria Gonzalez Calvet, Bockius, L.L.P., Morgan Lewis & Natha- Philadelphia, lie Gilfoyle,for American Psychological Association. Burns, Jr.,
Hugh Office, J. Philadelphia Attorney’s District Carr, Peter for Pennsylvania. Commonwealth of CASTILLE, C.J., SAYLOR, EAKIN, BAER, BEFORE: TODD, McCAFFERY, GREENSPAN, JJ.
OPINION Justice TODD.
This case presents the of whether question a convicted person who seeks court-ordered DNA testing under Act,” 9543.1, “Postconviction DNA Testing § 42 Pa.C.S.A. is precluded confession, his which was ruled to be voluntary trial, admitted into evidence him at against from estab- lishing prima case that DNA demonstrating facie would review, establish his actual innocence. After careful we confession, conclude that a even if previously finally adju- dicated as voluntary, does not constitute a per se bar to estab- *4 case, a lishing prima and convicted person may, facie therefore, obtain DNA testing under if Section 9543.1 he or she meets all of this statute’s pertinent requirements. Ac- cordingly, we vacate the Superior Court’s order and remand this case for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
The record reveals the factual in following background this 19, 1991, matter. Saturday, On October members of the Philadelphia Police went Department to the home of the
victim, who lived alone at Talley, 77-year-old Louise a widow in order to check on her at Philadelphia, 3959 Nice Street who had been family of concerned members request gathered to contact her. Relatives who had outside unable to the home. As the officers granted the officers access entered, bloody be a appeared one of them saw what door,1 on the screen and the officers observed that fingerprint ransacked, the first floor of the house to have been appeared on the floor and furniture drawers open. with couch cushions basement, After the first floor and the the officers checking floor, they to the second where discovered the proceeded of the victim face down on her bedroom floor body unclothed covered in blood. about the victim were various items Strewn bloody clothing, including nylon stockings, girdle, her body shoes. Underneath her was her blood-soaked empty blouse, bra, purse, and a housecoat. Situated inside the folds of the housecoat a kitchen knife encrusted blood. blood, bedspread victim’s was also saturated with and a fitted covering heavily bed sheet her mattress was stained with a mixture of blood and semen.
Some of the officers on the scene were responding present by an individual who told them “he had heard that approached Tony was the [Appellant] Wright person responsible for the killing Talley,” might staying of Ms. and “he be on Bott Street with a the name of either N.T. guy St. Ives or St. James.” Trial, 5/26/93, at 73. Subsequently, two officers and detec- tive went to home at 3978 Bott Street where Roland Saint (“St. James”) resided, roommate, along James with his John Trial, 6/1/93, “Buddy” Richardson. N.T. 20. This home about 300 feet was located from victim’s house. St. James admitted at trial that he rented rooms of this residence to cocaine, and, also, they others so could smoke crack that he help procure would others it from local Id. at 34- dealers. investigators subsequently performed fingerprint 1. Crime scene ‘‘lift” partial prints on this and other located on the frame storm door window, compared Appellant’s fingerprints, which its were but Trial, match no was obtained. N.T. at 109. 5/26/93 *5 St. James was in placed handcuffs and taken to the police officers, station one of whom him informed that he was “primary Id. at suspect.” 57-58. After interrogation, St. James, warrant, who was wanted on an outstanding bench statement, gave which was typed by detectives and later statement, signed by him. In this alleged St. James Appellant had told him that sometime on the night Friday, October 69, 72, he had “stabbed a woman.” Id. at 75. After he gave his statement to the police, St. James was released. Id. at 60.
According to St. trial testimony, James’ St. James claimed that Appellant, age then arrived at his house on the afternoon of Friday, October 18 and repeatedly entered and left the residence all afternoon and all evening, the while using crack cocaine and time with spending various women who 7, 34, 42, were on the premises. Id. at 74. Appellant told him he was robbing drug get dealers to the money pay for the crack and that he had an with argument his mother that evening. Id. at 19. He Appellant noticed wearing white t- shirt with the word “Pennant” iton and that this t-shirt had a it, “little blood” on but also stated that did not Appellant have his shirt on for most of the night. Id. at 47. Later in his testimony, St. James conceded that he might police have told at the time of interrogation his that Appellant was wearing sweat gray pants, sneakers, white light jacket. and a colored Id. at 49. James,
St. who admitted to heavily crack using himself time, this during testified further that: sometime late Friday or night early Saturday morning, between the hours of 12:00 a.m., a.m. and 1:00 he left the house with Appellant buy crack, 8-9; additional id. at Appellant had told him he was from moving his mother’s home and needed help taking his television and radio out of them, the house in order to sell id. 9-10; he accompanied Appellant to the victim’s residence Street, on Nice whereupon Appellant told him he had to in go and get radio, 11; the television and id. at he did not want to house, ingo to the so he left Appellant standing front of the sidewalk, victim’s 29; house on the id. at and time, house, a short and left stayed him to his followed back *6 again, id. at 17. that, Saturday morning, later on also claimed
St. James a.m., at his with 2:00 arrived door Appellant sometime before id. at “Earl,” 15; Earl was known as another individual Appellant carry- television and large portable a carrying items, 16; that id. at radio, averring kept St. James ing asked him to hold them for sale until and Earl had Appellant .id. at 14; subsequently gave morning, later that St. James to sold and the radio in put television to another individual be 56; later, a.m., id. at trash, hours around 5:00 several roommate, Rich- bloody he received a white t-shirt from his id. ardson, him, at says carried it downstairs to who St. James 20-21; remembered that he “freaked out” at and St. James shirt, id. at 21. sight bloody to the in for took Richardson station handcuffs police Saturday morning, on and he remained there until questioning Id. at 150. He'was released following morning. 3:00 a.m. the to his whereabouts gave police regarding after he a statement Id. at Friday night. and his interactions with on Appellant trial, that, 151. At Richardson testified while he was out he he walking night, Appellant, that encountered whom before, briefly to met twice at the intersec- only claimed have Streets, Nice sometime after 8:00 Kerbaugh p.m. tion of was alone and dressed in a Appellant Richardson stated in carrying up red sweatshirt and a white t-shirt rolled a ball.2 Id. at 169-170. Richardson asserted that “asked Appellant go me to down the street on Nice Street and to be a look-out keys at a house because he said he had the to the house and some T.V.s out.” Id. ingo get that he wanted to there and Richardson, 144. to once out the According Appellant pointed house, go along Appellant’s plan he refused to with and tried because, words, in lady,” to dissuade him his he “knew the he did not “break in houses.” Id. At this Richardson point, him, “look, well, I guess claimed told I have to in go identify 2. not the t-shirt one which he Richardson could as same alleged morning. to have found in St. James’ house later that Id. at there, there and if I if myself go anything happen I’m [sic] her, you to have to kill know.” Id. at 145. going Richardson professed to have left the scene at that to point go to local bar and to only returned St. James’ home around 6:00 a.m. to to work. Id. go
In regard to the t-shirt St. James claimed Richardson stairs, carried down the Richardson testified he found the shirt on his return to the house located on a counter top under room, window the dining and that James him St. told the shirt in a put bag, take it down the put street and it into the trash since the garbage truck was Id. at coming. 148-49.
On afternoon of Sunday, October 20 went police house, Appellant’s and they were granted admittance Ap- *7 mother, pellant’s Marilyn Martin. Id. at 15. According to Santiago, Detective saw they Appellant on a sitting couch and told him they were investigating murder of the victim. Santiago Detective Appellant asked if he accompany would them to the Police interviewed, Administration to be Building arrival, and he agreed. Upon Detective Santiago Appel- took lant upstairs to the Homicide Division and told him they that would charging be him with the murder of the victim. Id. at Thereafter, 25. Detective Santiago read Appellant his-Mi- randa rights, and he had Appellant yes write or no answers to written on a questions form relating to his understanding of rights, those as well as initialing each of his answers. Id. at 27. Santiago testified that Appellant statement, then gave which was not by but, recorded audio or visual instead, means typewritten another detective.
According to this nine-page transcription, Appellant re- the following counted series of events to the detectives: Ap- pellant went to St. James’ house on Friday night and then left there and met Richardson at the corner of Kerbaugh and Bott streets. He told Richardson that money he needed for drugs it, and was to rob the going victim and but get that he would have to kill her since she knew him. agreed Richardson to be a lookout and waited for him. Around midnight, Appellant went to the victim’s house and knocked on her door. Once she answered, Appellant barged into her home and took her floor, to a kitchen only grab the second pausing to
upstairs floor, the second Upon reaching knife from the kitchen. he tie her her to remove her clothes so could asked Appellant her; stabbed struggle Appellant she to up. began When however, her, had with her on the floor stabbing before he sex bedroom, then ejaculate. Appellant but he did not house, from the but left the knife became scared and fled Id. at 34-39. the room. outside, motioned for waiting Appellant
Richardson was and him, met with him to to Bott then St. go Appellant Street. to James, Earl at house and told them he “had St. James’ me,” after which all four kill because she knows [the victim] 37. “get back to her home and her stuff.” Id. at go decided clock radio from the room and They removed television and back to purse a little black and took the items St. James’ at Appellant spent night house. the rest of St. James’ the clothes he was Appellant wearing house. described [sic],” Bills blue evening “Chicago as a black sweatshirt with them, FILA jeans with suede on and black sneakers. Id. He that these items could be found in police informed at his his bedroom home. Id. Santiago Appellant,
Detective testified that who had com- all them. pleted grade, pages signed tenth read nine Id. at 40. Detective estimated that were in the Santiago they hours, after room with for not more than 1-1/2 they which under arrest and him placed Appellant charged *8 only with the homicide of the victim.3 Id. at 39. He was the charged individual with homicide in connection with her death. Id. at 42. next obtained a warrant for police Appellant’s search
home, they which executed on afternoon. Sunday Appellant’s and, mother the officers entrance to the granted residence to their the officers to her son’s response request, directed bedroom on the second floor. Id. at 96. remained She downstairs as the officers their search of Appel- conducted lant’s room. who in the participated One detectives with, for, additionally charged Appellant and tried offenses burglary, rape, robbery, possession and of instruments of crime. search, Jastrzembski, Detective Frank testified that between found, the box and mattress of spring Appellant’s they bed of, and took a black custody Chicago Bulls sweatshirt with jeans white trim and a blue pair with a suede front. N.T. 6/2/93, at 98. The jeans sweatshirt and were both stained with blood, jeans and the also contained a seminal stain in the front zipper region. Additionally the seized a of black police pair FILA sneakers on the floor. laying
After held for trial being charges, on all filed a Appellant suppress motion to this evidence on the grounds his confession was involuntary and made as the result of physical and psychological conduct, coercion and deceitful police which he occurred after he alleged indicated he did not speak wish to with He police. also asserted that he did not receive Miranda nor he warnings, any did understand of the things police wrote down or which he signed. A suppression hearing was 16, 1992, held on December before the Honorable Eugene H. Clarke, following which Judge Clarke denied the motion. Appellant’s trial capital place took from 26May through June trial, 1993. At Appellant’s confession was admitted into against evidence him and read to the jury.
In testimony addition to the of the witnesses as described above, the Commonwealth also presented at trial the testimo- of two ny witnesses on the present street near the victim’s murder, home on the night of her Greg Alston and Shawn Alston, Nixon. related that around p.m. 10:00 on the night Friday, October 18 he youths and two other were sitting on the corner of and Kerbaugh Nice Streets. Alston he testified saw Appellant “pacing up and down the street” four times for about seven minutes with a man he identified as Richardson. Trial, N.T. 83. Alston stated that he then 6/1/93 observed knock on the door of the victim’s home go in while Richardson waited outside. Id. at 82. Al- Nixon, ston’s companion, testified that he also recalled seeing Appellant walk up and down the street ingo the victim’s However, house. Nixon denied that specifically it was Rich- ardson, knew, whom he with Appellant. Rather he identified Appellant’s Trial, 6/2/93, as Earl. companion N.T. at 75-76. *9 Lieberman, who con- Examiner Edwin Medical
Assistant morning Sunday, victim the the on the autopsy ducted by multiple was caused testified that her death October wounds, injuries. Id. at 114. with blunt force coupled stab wounds, depth and their of the Because of the dimension likely were in- opined they Dr. Lieberman penetration, recovered from of knife as the knife flicted a similar class housecoat. Id. at 116-123. the folds of the victim’s the time of conclusively could not determine Dr. Lieberman death, estimated that she died sometime the victim’s pronounced of 36 hours before she was within a time period Trial, 6/2/93, Saturday, on 19. N.T. p.m. dead at 4:30 October additionally jury Lieberman informed the 132. Dr. of acid tests on swabs taken from phosphatase that the results rectum, during autopsy and mouth vagina, the victim’s that the of acid negative. jury presence were He told activity,” would indicate a “scenario of sexual phosphatase or was not vasectomy the male did not have provided at 127. a condom. Id. wearing testimony further heard from criminalist Louis jury of forensic he regarding per- Brenner results Brenner formed on of evidence introduced at trial. pieces of the blood- type testing4 conducted conventional ABO blood bathrobe, stains on the knife found under victim’s bed, jeans on her and the sweatshirt and which fitted sheet Appel- the detectives testified were taken from underneath only presence lant’s bed. He related that he found Trial, A, type, type victim’s blood on all of these items. N.T. 6/3/93, at 30-33. subjected
Brenner the semen stain found in the crotch also jeans to the blood Brenner type testing. area of the same type testified that had blood O and was secretor.5 typing system groups 4. The ABO blood human blood into four well O, A, B, recognized types blood and AB which are named for basic antigens specific found in the cell membranes of red blood cells. 3 ed., 2008) (Cyril § H. Wecht Lexis Nexis 29.07[b] Forensic Sciences (hereinafter "). "Forensic Sciences percent popula- Approximately of individuals in the total human secretors, means, exception which with the of those tion are considered *10 6/3/93, not, however, Trial, at 40-41. He determine N.T. could Id. at the victim was a secretor or non-secretor. whether 42. Brenner told the that he found A and H jury antigens jeans explained the semen stain on the and that the presence of the A indicated that a secretor like antigen type Appel- O Id. solely lant could not have been for the stain. responsible However, at 33-35. Brenner also informed the jury that a containing stain a mixture of fluids from an A secretor an and O secretor could also to have from the appear originated only individual with the A blood since both type, pro- individuals fluids, duce the H in their antigen respective bodily but there is no in the antigen bodily fluid of a secretor with type 0 Id. Brenner indicated that it was blood. possi- therefore not using ble this method to if determine the stain on the jeans or, was from more than one if person, it was a mixed sample, differentiate the various people may who have Id. contributed to it.
Brenner also related that he early generation conducted DNA testing, known as on HLA-DQ, bloodstains, these same and all were found to contain only victim’s specific geno- type.6 Brenner told the jury this genotype present type specific with blood type antigen their blood can be found in fluids, saliva, large sweat, quantities bodily gastric in other such as secretors,
juices bodily including and semen. The fluids of all those O, Thus, type with blood antigen also contain a substance known as H. fluids, bodily sperm, type such only as from a O secretor will contain H, antigen bodily type whereas the fluids of secretors with A blood will H, blood, antigen antigen contain A and type antigen those with B B H, blood, antigen and type antigen antigen and those with AB AB and remaining twenty percent H. The population five are classified non-secretors, bodily as and their contain type fluids neither their blood antigen antigen. supra nor the H Forensic Sciences at n. 5. 6. The principles undergirding fundamental scientific DNA tests were Prize-winning derived from the work biologists of Nobel molecular Crick, famously Watson who determined that an intact human helix, shape molecule took the of a double which resembles a strands, spring spiral consisting twisted or staircase of two entwined containing cytosine, guanine, each thymine, the amino acids and ade- nine, which are known as bases. These bases are situated in each strand in a linear fashion like linked cars of a train. The two strands together by are held bonds which form across the strands between each of the bases in the obey individual strands. These bonds certain rules; thus, only thymine cytosine
biochemical adenine bonds with and further estimated population only percent five in combination finding specific genotype this probability population, in the African American
with A blood type member, 1.4 to be approximately which the victim was cross-examination, he acknowledged at 73. percent. Id. On that the definitively could not establish that the test results at 85. only came from the victim. Id. bloodstains Brenner, however, to not the seminal subjecting admitted jeans on the sheet and the crotch area of the stains found having that his lab was HLA-DQ testing. He indicated *11 obtain mate- difficulty techniques genetic then extant using He testing. expressed rial from seminal stains for accurate from such testing dissatisfaction with the results obtained efforts, “consistently complete.” and he did not deem them Hence, Id. at 75-76. he did not want to test a seminal stain bonded, guanine. separate they with Once the two bases have are Justice, Dept, Principles pairs. referred to base U.S. Forensic as (2009), 6-7, http://forensic. DNA at available at the Court for Officers of dna.gov. cells, skin, sperm, In with as or white blood cells nuclei such packaged DNA is within chromosomes located in the nucleus. Certain portions genes, of the DNA material in chromosomes are called segments "coding” regions they thereof are considered since direct a and, thus, proteins they cell’s manufacture of determine an individual’s color, particular eye physical attributes and characteristics such as hair 50-55; Trial, 6/3/93, right-handedness. color and left or N.T. at John Butler, (Elsevier 2006). Typing gene 22-23 2d. ed. A also Forensic non-coding sequences pairs directly contains of base which do not proteins, segments pairs control the manufacture of and other of base genes non-coding in the chromosome between are as well. Both the non-coding portion genes non-coding of certain and other areas of individuals, and, thus, vary significantly chromosomes between are identity testing. position utilized DNA for The on a chro- as markers particular mosome where a DNA marker can be found is known as a locus. The form of DNA marker observed at each chromosomal locus examined in a DNA test is considered an allele. Since chromosomes pairs, occur in with one chromosome inherited from the mother and father, specific from will be one there two alleles for chromosomal locus, parent. designation one derived from each The of two alleles at HLA-DQ particular testing genotype. locus referred to as a focuses is only specific human on one locus on chromosome number six. alleles, pair sequence base at this locus has six known which can 56-61; Trial, 6/3/93, separate genotypes. combine to form 21 at N.T. Inman, Butler, 22-23; Rudin, Norah Keith An Introduction to 43, (CRC ed.2002). Analysis Forensic DNA Press 2d since he did not feel comfortable that this method yield would results which could be admissible as evidence. Id. Appellant’s mother testified on his behalf. She recalled that she was present during search of her house by detectives and acknowledged them her directing son’s room. Howev- er, detectives, she averred that the after intensively searching room, came back down the stairs carrying only a white jumpsuit, which work, she stated Appellant routinely wore to as well pictures child, as of his girlfriend and which he had hanging on his bedroom wall. Id. at 128-129. She claimed that she did not see the sweatshirt, detectives remove a jeans, sneakers, or and denied that her son ever owned such items Id. at 130. testified in his own defense. categorically He victim, killing her,
denied sexually assaulting or taking from her things house. Id. at 145. He asserted he did not know St. James or Richardson or any of the other witnesses testified, who and he claimed to have never been St. James’ house. Id. at 146-148. Appellant related that on Friday, October 18 he went to work at a.m. and came home 7:00 that, around 5:00 or 5:30 Id. at p.m. 152. He recounted later that evening, around 11:30 he p.m., went with a friend to a local night a.m., club and remained there until 4:00 after which *12 he returned home and went to bed. Id. He stated that on Saturday a.m., he awoke around 10:00 went shopping with friends, then, afterward, some and went with them to a concert Cheyney University.
He recalled awaking at about 10:00 a.m. on Sunday and watching game football on television when the detectives came to his house to question him. He remembered to going the station with them at their request, but averred that he had no were knowledge they investigating the victim’s death until they told him. He testified he repeatedly killing denied during victim a lengthy five hour interrogation, but he changed his mind and agreed to confess after the detectives him threatened with harm. physical Id. He signing recalls sheets, read, number of he which did not at the detective’s request. Id. at 161-162. Although he acknowledged that the him against entered into evidence on the confession
signature his, read the factual details he claimed he never at trial was him in for preparation until it was shown to the confession Id. at 164. trial. jumpsuit, which he possessing to white
Appellant admitted sweat- work, owning the relevant flatly for but denied wore He avowed the shirt, or shoes. Id. at 164-165. jeans, his shoe size was could not have been his since shoes 9-1/2 In size 11. Id. at 171. into evidence were the shoes admitted addition, a size 38 which was wearing pants, he professed Id. at jeans than the entered into evidence. larger two sizes 172. jury testimony,
After all of the aforementioned hearing Although on all counts. guilty returned a verdict of jury could not penalty, the death sought Commonwealth result, As a the trial unanimously punishment. on that agree imprisonment. a sentence of life imposed court affirmed appeal, Superior Appellant’s On direct Court He filed no for allowance of petition of sentence. judgment 1996, Appellant pro our In filed a se appeal August Court. (“PCRA”), 42 the Post Relief Act under Conviction petition 9541-46, trial alleging §§ three issues coun- raising Pa.C.S.A. denied, ineffectiveness, which was this denial sel’s later by Appel- Court. Our Court denied upheld Superior for allowance of petition appeal. lant’s 9543.1, Thereafter, legislature our enacted Section which Appellant, represented pro effect on September took counsel, Rodrigues, Esq., bono new Sondra as well as Project University the Innocence of Brandéis attorneys from vice, York, admitted hoc filed a motion under this pro New 15, 2005, on that he was innocent of the July asserting statute the victim. a form of rape Appellant requested and murder of known as Tandem Repeat more advanced Short (“STR”) which he averred was not available for Analysis,7 Analysis repeating sequences determines the number of of two to 7. STR *13 pairs present multiple Typically, loci. at least five base chromosomal Analysis, separate 13 chromosomal loci are examined in standard STR required for to be since this is the minimum number test results until 1999. such Contending testing forensic use could demon- innocence, actual Appellant requested strate his PCRA court him to test the semen and grant permission bloodstains jeans, found on the the fitted sheet taken from the victim’s bed, sweatshirt, the bloodstain on the the handle of the knife, oral, vaginal, kitchen and the and rectal swabs taken during autopsy. the victim’s asserted that testing evidence, preserved, of this which is had the potential demonstrate that he was not the source of the perpetrator’s that, tested, DNA. He if alleged also the results could be into national DNA purpose entered databases for the of the actual individual who finding committed crimes. court, the Honorable D. Keogh, PCRA Webster denied 10,
Appellant’s testing July motion for on 2006. In opinion his order, Clarke, in support Judge of his noted that Keogh Judge motion, in his on previous ruling Appellant’s suppression Appellant’s determined confession was not coerced. Trial 7/10/2006, Opinion, Court at 4. Contrary to the PCRA court’s in opinion, statement its Petitioner did not further raise the issue of the propriety of Judge ruling Clarke’s either his direct appeal, prior his PCRA or his petition, appeal from the denial petition. of that See Wright, Commonwealth v. No. 1994, 1-2, 00487 Philadelphia unpublished memorandum at 638, Pa.Super. 14, 1995); 1200 (Pa.Super. A.2d filed August Commonwealth v. Wright, No. 5228 Philadelphia unpub 1, 1999) lished memorandum at 7-9 (Pa.Super. Sept. filed issues). (enumerating discussing Because 42 Pa.C.S.A. 9543.1(c)(3)(ii)(A) § an requires applicant for DNA testing to “present prima case demonstrating that the: ... DNA facie evidence, of specific results, assuming exculpatory innocence,” would ... applicant’s establish: actual Judge Keogh Judge deemed Clarke’s finding the confession was ("Combined Indexing System”)
included
CODIS
DNA
the national
maintained
multiplicity
database
the FBI. Because of the
type
testing,
chromosomal
loci used in this
and the fact that 8 to 20
may potentially
population
alleles
locus,
occur in the
for each chromosomal
statistically improbable
any
it is
for
two random individuals in
world,
twins,
except
profile
identical
to share the same DNA
Principles
obtained from this test.
Forensic DNA
for Officers of
Court,
supra at n.
54-58.
*14
a
making
prima
from
out
not coerced as precluding
case,
decision in Com
Superior
to the
Court
pursuant
facie
(ruling
720 (Pa.Super.2005)
v.
873 A.2d
Young,
monwealth
to DNA
under
testing
that an individual was not entitled
crime, and the
he had confessed to the
9543.1 where
Section
voluntary),
determined to be
discussed
confession was
that,
Moreover,
Keogh also noted
greater length
Judge
infra.
9543.1(d)(2)(i), a court “shall not order DNA
under Section
if,
record,
of the
the court determines
testing
after review
that
would
probability
testing
produce
there is no reasonable
that would establish ...
actual inno
exculpatory evidence
cence,” and he determined that
is no such reasonable
“[t]here
7/10/2006,
in
Trial
at 6.
possibility
Opinion,
this case.”
Court
Court,
decision,
in a
appeal,
Superior
published
On
v.
A.2d 542
also
Wright,
(Pa.Super.2007),
Commonwealth
and,
result,
as a
infra, agreed Young
controlling
discussed
was
Judge
Appellant’s petition. Appel-
affirmed
denial of
Keogh’s
review,
our
for
which we
subsequently petitioned
lant
Court
of whether a
granted, solely
question
voluntary
limited to the
confession
an individual from
precluded
establishing
prima
testing
case of his innocence in order to obtain DNA
facie
under
9543.1.
v.
597 Pa.
Wright,
Section
See Commonwealth
(2008) (order).
233,
Appellant argues
suppression
his
motion
him,
adversely
was decided
and his confession ruled to be
voluntary,
does not
him from
preclude
obtaining
under Section 9543.1. He avers that
the question of the
of his
admissibility
confession as evidence has
nothing
do
with the
question whether he is entitled to utilize previously
unavailable DNA testing in order to
that
prove
the factual
substance of the confession was false
he did not rape
or murder the victim. He points out that the rules barring
the admission of involuntary confessions at
grounded
trial are
in an
guarantee
individual’s
process
due
under the Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitu-
*15
tion, and the United
Supreme
States
Court has repeatedly
held that the accuracy of the facts contained in the statements
is irrelevant to the question of admissibility. See Appellant’s
alia,
Brief at 19 (citing, inter
California,
Lisenba v.
314 U.S.
219, 236,
(1941) (“The
62 S.Ct.
fear for that, because his confession was concluding Court erred of his admissible, finally guilt. also determinative ruled it was contrast, sought he would testing he maintains the DNA By factual on this ultimate central evidence provide powerful question. Pennsylvania cites and discusses three specifically
Appellant
Godschalk,
Barry
Nicholas Yarris and
of Bruce
cases—those
using
finally
danger
illustrative
Laughman —as
voluntariness to bar subse-
of a confession’s
litigated ruling
actual
innocence.
testing
prove
DNA
quent
cases,
that,
innocent individuals
in all three of these
contends
and,
not commit
police
they
confessions to
for crimes
did
gave
established that none
them had
though
even
convicted,
were
their
they
the crimes for which
participated
of those crimes which
confessions all included distinct details
Further, all
not been released to the
of these
public.
had
as
sought
suppressed
individuals
to have their confessions
of the Fifth Amendment
involuntary
right
either
or violative
against
right
self-incrimination and
Sixth Amendment
However,
cases, the
the assistance of counsel.
in each of the
*16
by
confession was deemed admissible
the trial
defendant’s
court,
finding
admissibility
upheld
post-
and this
of
was
conviction
All three individuals were convicted
challenges.
after trials at which their confessions were used as a key piece
them, and their convictions were subse-
against
of evidence
it
quently
appellate
Appellant
affirmed on
review.
notes that
the
of
DNA
only through
post-conviction
testing
was
use
individuals,
subject
one of
imprisoned
these
whom was
to
sentence, were able to demonstrate their innocence of
death
they
the crimes for which
had been convicted.9
gave
audiotaped
rapes
9. Godschalk
an
confession to two
in which he
explicitly
rights.
waived his Miranda
This confession was admitted as
him,
it,
against
despite
evidence at trial
his recantation of
and he was
years
convicted and sentenced to 10-20
incarceration. Godschalk later
sought
testing,
DNA
but because his case arose before the enactment of
9543.1,
request
Section
he made his
under the PCRA with an assertion
failing
request
testing.
that his trial counsel was ineffective for
to
such
request, citing
The PCRA court denied the
the fact that his confession
and,
"overwhelming
opinion,
was valid and admissible
in its
was
guilt”
rapes
of
since it contained details of the
which
[his]
evidence
(citing
publicly
v.
were not
available.
Id. at 367
Commonwealth God-
schalk,
(1996)).
Pa.Super.
Appellant of statutory 9543.1 as violative of the rules text Section adding refrain from require which courts to interpretation has not included. legislature to statutes which the provisions statutory plain meaning He notes that nowhere in the testing an DNA for express prohibition against text is there confessed, any who have nor is there indication individuals from the that such a confession would statutory language establishing a convicted individual from automatically preclude *18 pellant Superior interpretation contends that the Court’s in Young and the case at bar creates an artificial barrier to DNA in testing legislature’s contravention intent. that,
Additionally, out Appellant points present, other states, Columbia, the District of and the federal government have enacted statutes for providing post conviction DNA and none of testing, expressly those statutes bars DNA test- ing cases where there is a if it confession—even has been ruled voluntary. Appellant underscores the fact that Young decision in Superior Court is a distinct in the anomaly body of jurisprudence interpreting the other state and federal statutes, DNA testing only as it is the decision to interpret DNA statute to testing automatically exclude those who have confessed voluntarily utilizing legislatively from established for procedures obtaining testing. that the argues categorical bar to DNA testing by Young
articulated for defendants whose confessions were voluntary deemed would deny actually innocent individuals they access to the DNA could utilize to testing prove their This, claims of innocence. Appellant argues, would result in “unjust and absurd” result of innocent individuals being or, wrongfully incarcerated for lengthy terms like Nicholas Yarris, subjected to potential execution. Brief at Appellant’s hearing Judiciary It is a bill that came out of the of the Committee on moratorium, penalty going through on the death and as we were that process, Pennsylvania easy we found that does not have access to testing persons they for those on death row or other crimes are charged type testing. legislation with to have that access to This provide testing provide payment process would that for it and a case, process easily present in which an individual could their and a judge they could then decide whether would be allowed to have the not, they or would be allowed to have it if the evidence innocence, prove you prove would their or if are on death row to they aggravating were innocent of the crime that an circum- and/or justified press, stance was not ... we [A]s have seen in the there are individual, and, course, occasions when DNA is used to convict an there convincingly are occasions when DNA can establish the inno- join cence of an individual. And so we will now 13 other States provide process this nation that will for this and to make sure that we anyone prisons do not have in our or on death row who is innocent. Greenleaf, Journal, 6/19/01, Floor Statement of Senator Stewart Senate
page 745. quintes constitute “the consequences He maintains such 46.11 Id. at 46-17.12 miscarriage justice.” sential review, we agree our own conducting independent After erred in Superior that the Court and conclude parties with Young by announcing sweeping preclusion. such a Corre- Young Superi- that the reliance on we hold spondingly, *19 reversal. For the reasons below necessitates panel or Court Young the follow, disavow and overrule expressly that we in the matter. present Court Superior decision as fol- provides at issue pertinent statutory language lows: testing
§ Postconviction DNA 9543.1.
(a) Motion.—
(1) of a criminal offense in a An individual convicted serving impris- a term of court of this Commonwealth execution because of a sentence of awaiting onment or making a written motion to the may apply by death the of DNA sentencing performance court for forensic that is related to the investi- testing specific on evidence or that resulted in the of gation prosecution judgment conviction. confession, in and of To buttress his contention that existence of a
11. itself, provide guilt, Appellant does not conclusive evidence of cites resulting testing, which he studies of reversals of convictions from DNA people falsely claims have shown innocent have confessed to crimes alia, (citing, they Appellant's Brief at 24-26 did not commit. See inter L., Innocence, Garrett, Judging Brandon 108 Colum. L.Rev. 76 Garrett, L., (2008); Confessions, Brandon The Substance False Leo, (2010); Drizin Stanford Law Review 1051 False Confessions World, (2004)). in the Post-DNA 82 N.C.L.Rev. that, 9543.1, enacting by also contends Section state right testing has created a to DNA for convicted defendants to establish recognized right their actual that he also has a under the innocence and present Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution to a defense party the crime for which he has been accused that third committed inculpatory against appears. no matter how the evidence him He Superior asserts that the Court’s construction of Section 9543.1 in Young rights. Appellant's impedes both Brief at 50-53. Since our today grounded principles statutory interpretation, decision is on we claims. need not address these (c) Requirements. (a), any motion under subsection —In penalty perjury, applicant under shall:
[*] [*] [*] (3) prima case that present demonstrating the: facie (i) identity of or the in the crime participation by was at issue in the perpetrator proceedings resulted applicant’s conviction and sentencing; and (ii) evidence, of the specific assuming results, exculpatory would establish: (A) the applicant’s actual innocence of the offense for convicted; which the applicant was § 42 Pa.C.S.A. 9543.1.13 begin
We our discussion reviewing rationale em- ployed by the Superior Court in Young the case sub and in judice construing these statutory provisions. Young, In appellant, juvenile, was convicted of the crimes of second- murder, degree robbery, and other offenses for the stabbing *20 of his next door neighbor, whose bloodied body was found her laying against kitchen door. In eyewitness addition to the testimony son, of the decedent’s young who saw threat- Young en his mother in her bedroom while a knife brandishing and later from the fleeing premises, the trial evidence included a knife, shoes, pants and a washcloth containing human blood recovered from Young’s Young house. also gave full confes- sion to the crime to police, but the Commonwealth did not introduce this confession into evidence at trial.
In Young’s direct appeal to the Superior Court and our Court, he never the challenged voluntariness of his confession. However, in subsequent PCHA14 proceedings, he that argued the trial court erred in admitting physical the against evidence him since it was “the fruit of the poisonous tree” of his involuntary confession. This claim was rejected by the trial respect (c)(3)(i), requirements 13. With to the parties of subsection the dispute identity herein do not perpetrator rape that the of the of the and murder the Appellant's of victim was the central in issue trial. Act, Hearing §§ Post Conviction (repealed), Pa.C.S.A. 9541-9551 predecessor the to the PCRA. by Superi- affirmed on the appeal court and that decision was or Court. 9543.1,
Young
petition
requesting
next filed a
under Section
taken from his
physical
on the items of
evidence
home,
court
The PCRA court rea-
which the trial
denied.
crime,
the
of the
identity
perpetrator
soned that neither the
of
innocence,
at
the
actual
was
issue
question Young’s
nor
before,
or after trial. The PCRA court based
any
during,
time
that,
the
on the fact
in his PCHA appeal,
its conclusion
well
voluntary,
Court concluded his confession was
as
Superior
the victim’s son’s observation of
his moth-
Young menacing
as
death,
shortly
physical
er with the knife
before her
in
house.
Young’s
evidence of the blood stained items found
court concluded all of these factors constituted
PCRA
indicia
left
no doubt
“overwhelming
guilt,”
“virtually
which
identity
Young,
to the
of the
Nevertheless,
conclusions,
these erroneous factual
despite
panel agreed
with the PCRA court that
could not
Young
*21
prima
meet the
of Section 9543.1 for DNA
requirements
facie
testing.
panel acknowledged Young’s
The
claim of innocence
in his
9543.1
but found his confession to the
petition
Section
murder barred him from
a claim of actual innocence
asserting
“the
validity
finally litigated,
since
confession [was]
coerced,
knowingly
voluntarily
found not to be
and was
and
In the
the Superior
panel opinion,
instant
Court
by Judge
joined by Judge Popovich,15
authored
Panella and
specifically
Young
Judge Keogh’s
relied on
to affirm
denial of
ruled
failure to
Appellant’s petition.
panel
Appellant’s
of
appeal
ruling
suppression
court that his confession
knowing
voluntary
and
caused that
to become “the
ruling
law of the case.”
In considering propriety of these we are rulings, guided our well established standard review of an order denying post-conviction relief. Our task is to examine wheth er the lower rulings supported by court’s are the evidence of record as well as whether are free from they legal error. Morales, 400, 408, Commonwealth v. 549 Pa. 701 A.2d (1997). confession, To the question resolve of whether a voluntariness of which fully finally has been litigated prior proceedings, precludes person convicted from subse quently presenting prima exculpatory case results faeie obtained from DNA items of evidence would estab innocence, lish his or her actual us to requires interpret language relevant 9543.1. Because statutory Section inter law, novo, pretation is a matter of our standard' of review is de Judge Joyce argument participate heard oral in the case but did not in the final decision. *22 48 v. is Commonwealth plenary. of review scope
and our (2006). 1241, McClintic, 465, 472, A.2d 1245 Pa. 909 589 court’s conclu- are not bound the lower we Consequently, provi- of the meaning applicable regarding proper sions 624, Pa. Kyle, v. 582 See Commonwealth sions of this statute. (2005) 12, that our Court owes no 632, (holding 17 874 A.2d of lower courts legal of to the conclusions duty deference construction). statutory regarding an issue Statutory governed by review is further Our which our Act, seq., § 1 1501 et under Pa.C.S.A. Construction is to effect to the intent of give task paramount interpretative legislation Assembly enacting particular our General 1921(a) (“The object of all § 1 under review. See Pa.C.S.A. to and construction of statutes is ascertain and interpretation Assembly. Every of the effectuate the intention General construed, if to effect to all its possible, give statute shall be Schneider, 131, 599 Pa. Nationwide Ins. Co. v. provisions.”); (2008). 442, 143, Generally, 448 the best indication of 960 A.2d intent be found in the Assembly’s may plain the General Commonwealth, Dep’t the statute. Martin v. language of 429, 438, Licensing, Bureau Driver 588 Pa. 905 Transp., (2006). 438, In this “it is not for the courts regard, A.2d 443 statute, add, a a which the by interpretation, requirement fit v. legislature did not see to include.” Commonwealth 59-60, 277, 282 Corp., Rieck Investment 419 Pa. A.2d (1965). Consequently, statutory interpreta matter of “[a]s tion, attentively one is admonished to listen to what a although attentively must also listen to what it does says[;][o]ne statute Farm say.” not Kmonk-Sullivan v. State Mut. Auto. Ins. (2001) (internal Co., 514, 525, 567 Pa. 788 A.2d omitted). quotations us, these to the case before
Applying principles plain (c)(3)(i) (c)(3)(ii)(A), together, of subsections read language two basic a convicted individual re- requirements establishes requirements who also meets the set questing testing, 9543.1(a), her obliged forth in is to establish his or Section 1) demonstrating written motion: case prima facie trial, was at identity of the of the crime issue perpetrator 2) specific case that DNA prima facie motion, in the assuming yields evidence identified it exculpato- results, ry would establish his or her actual innocence of the crime which he or she for was convicted. Nowhere in subsec- *23 (c)(3)(i) (c)(3)(ii)(A), tions or or in any provisions of the other 9543.1, of Section did the include an legislature explicit prohi- prevent bition to a convicted individual who has confessed to a crime, and who otherwise all statutory meets of the require- ments, from obtaining DNA testing, merely because of the existence of the confession. Neither do we perceive any reading entirety reasonable of the of the text of Section 9543.1 which impliedly would support such a restrictive construction. Consequently, any absent such or express implicit by direction legislature, it was improper for the Superior Court to judicially such a engraft barrier to DNA testing into this statute.
The critical flaw in the Superior Court’s reasoning Young, matter, and in its decision in the present legal its conclusion that a finally litigated on the ruling voluntariness of a confession was also fully and completely determinative of the and, thus, factual of the accuracy confession dispositive of the issue of actual guilt or innocence. improper This was since the issue of the voluntariness of a confession—i.e. whether it was obtained in a manner which did not violate the due process rights of the defendant under the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions —is entirely separate from the is sue of whether a defendant’s admissions the confession establish, conclusively factually, that he or she committed acts which form the basis for his or her conviction. As these are two and distinct separate questions, the resolution of each involves fundamentally different considerations.
When a court is called upon to determine whether a and, hence, trial, confession is voluntary admissible at it totality examines the of the circumstances surrounding confession to ascertain whether it is “the of an product essen tially free and unconstrained by choice its maker.” Schneck Bustamonte, 218, 225, loth v. 412 2041, U.S. 93 S.Ct. 36
50 (1973). a court is not inquiry, In this making
L.Ed.2d 854
of
the substance
with the issue
whether
concerned
Richmond,
534,
v.
365 U.S.
Rogers
confession is true. See
(1961)
544,
735,
(expressly disapproving
760
81
5 L.Ed.2d
S.Ct.
under the
admissibility of a confession
United
judging
which considers the
by utilizing a standard
States Constitution
empha-
instead
of the confession and
falsity
truth or
probable
to be
admissibility
question
is “a
sizing
question
that the
of whether or not
disregard
[the
with complete
answered
Denno,
truth.”);
v.
in fact
Jackson
spoke
defendant]
(1964)
368, 377,
(holding
Conversely, veracity the of the factual question confession, bearing matters contained in a and their on innocence, or is an guilt substantive issue of the defendant’s entirely inquiry altogether. As our Court cautioned separate five decades confession of the commission of a crime ago: “[A] sufficient, itself, is not in and of to convict.... We need not be confess to persons reminded of the countless situations where innocent, of a they crimes of which are either out desire for the or because of a up guilty person psychological cover Conklin, so.” Commonwealth v. 512, to do urge 399 Pa. 514- (1960). 160 A.2d Our Court’s observation of the reality of this curious of human aspect behavior has not lost its force of truth with the of intervening passage time.16
Further, even if a confession has been properly trial, admitted into evidence at a finder of fact is still not compelled to believe the matters contained in the confession Amicus, ("APA”), Psychological the American Association contends many brief its there have been historical instances when innocent commit, people they volunteered confessions to crimes did not includ- ing nearly people say they who came forward kidnapped Lindbergh’s baby, well-publicized Charles and the more recent confes- Ramsey. sion of John Mark Karr to the murder of JonBenet Amicus Brief for APA variety why at 8. The APA enumerates of reasons confess, people might voluntarily innocent such as an individual’s public notoriety, guilty feelings desire for media attention or or delu- involvement, they by sions of a belief that will benefit the act of confession, or the protect parent, confessor is motivated a desire to child, or someone else. Id. studies, Relying on the results various research the APA identifies primary two factors it believes to be reasons for false confessions resulting interrogation process. from the The first it factor cites is interrogation people tactics which can lead innocent to confess in order APA, interrogation to end the process. According to the such tactics (a) isolating cutting can involve: person being interrogated off the support family from his or her structure of and friends and then confronting person strong guilt with accusations of which the evidence, interrogator supported though claims are with even some of exist, may resulting this evidence strong feelings not even despair; (b) wearing interrogated person lengthy interrogations; down with (c) interrogator pretending severity to minimize the of the offense provide sympathy justification and to questioned or moral for the actions; (d) interrogator individual's suggesting to the individu- al that he leniency or she would be treated with if he or she confesses. The second factor the APA vulnerability discusses in its brief is the *25 groups people certain interrogation, of to particularly juveniles or individuals, intellectually impaired because those individuals do not comprehend they confessing what are to or even the nature of the questions alia, being Inbau, (citing, asked of them. Id. at 8-15 inter (Jones Bartlett, Interrogation Criminal 2001)); and and 3d. ed. Confessions Leo, Ofshe and Falsely: The Decision to Rational Confess Action, (1997); Choice and Irrational 74 Den. U.L.Rev. 979 Zulawski Wicklander, (CRC Aspects and Interrogation Practical Interview and of 1993); Leo, Room, Interrogation Press R. Inside the 86 J.Crim.L. and (Winter 1996); Ofshe, Criminology 266 Consequences Leo and The of Deprivations
False Liberty Miscarriages and Justice in Confessions: of of Age Psychological Interrogation, Criminology 88 J.Crim.L. and of (Winter 1998). 266 52 guilty, return a verdict of since automatically to
and
the defendant’s guilt
of the issue of
confession is not decisive
683, 689, 106
476 U.S.
Kentucky,
Crane v.
or innocence. See
(1986) (“Confessions,
2142,
even those
hold that a
that a confession was
litigated
juiy
judges
17. The standard
instructions
trial
across this Common-
frequently
juries
their
wealth
utilize to instruct
on
deliberations further
question
illustrate the clear distinction between the
of the voluntariness
confession,
question
of whether the confession is truthful
guilt.
explicitly
are
consider
and determinative of
Juries
instructed to
See,
Pennsylvania Suggested
questions separately.
e.g.,
both
Standard
(instructing
jury
they
Jury
§
are not
Instruction
3.04
to consid-
they
er a defendant’s statement unless
find the defendant made the
voluntarily)
(instructing
jury
they
§
statement
3.05
that once
voluntarily they
have
a defendant has made a statement
determined
may
evidence and
the circum-
then consider the statement as
consider
case,
making,
its
as well as all the other evidence in the
stances of
weight
judge
question
it
its truthfulness and how much
has on
guilt).
the defendant's
*26
and, hence, voluntary,
uncoerced
should also be treated as a
and, thus,
final determination as to the truth of that confession
decisive of the convicted individual’s
The “law of the
guilt.
Starr,
case” doctrine which we
in
supra,
discussed
and which
by
was relied on
in
Superior
Young
Court
as the basis for
Starr,
its
does not
holding,
compel such a conclusion. In
we
that,
doctrine,
under the
emphasized
law of the case
“a court
in
involved
the later
of a
phases
litigated matter should not
reopen questions
by
decided
another
of that
judge
same court
or
by
higher court
the earlier
phases of
matter.”
Starr,
However,
As noted the PCRA court indicated in its opinion in support that, of its dismissal of Appellant’s motion under it Young, considered the previous ruling that Appellant’s confession was voluntary barring, matter, as as a categorical Appellant from establishing prima case for DNA facie Thus, it testing. did not consider whether Appellant’s specific allegations factual in his motion for DNA testing established a and murder of rape of his innocence of the case
prima facie *27 to necessary to remand this case the victim. It is therefore in question it consider this the may the PCRA court so that first instance.18 above, the PCRA court conclud
Additionally, as mentioned possibility there was no reasonable opinion by stating ed its excul testing produce DNA would Appellant’s requested that innocence, required actual as establishing evidence his patory 9543.1(d)(2)(i).19The the en following represents by Section of the rationale for this conclusion: tirety PCRA Court’s prima demonstrating Petitioner fails to case present facie actual innocence of the testing that DNA would establish his to 42 for which he was convicted. Pursuant [offenses] 9543.1(d)(2)(i), § Pa.C.S. this Court shall not order if, record, after review of the the court determines testing there is no reasonable that would possibility testing produce evidence that would establish the Petitioner’s exculpatory actual innocence of the offense for which he was convicted. in possibility There is no such reasonable this case. 7/10/06, then, Trial Court at 5-6. It that the Opinion, appears, may Young have considered the se bar of to per PCRA Court of a case of his inno- Appellant’s prima establishment facie cence as also to him from operating prevent demonstrating reasonable of his innocence under possibility Section 9543.1(d)(2)(i). Superior panel The Court below did not ad- dress this issue in its on opinion, having Young relied above, supra parties dispute the 18. As noted see note do not that the trial, identity perpetrator Appellant was at issue at since re- peatedly person raped asserted at trial he was not the who participated any murdered the victim or otherwise in of the crimes evening. which were committed that provides: 19. This subsection
(d) Order— (2) testing requested in a court shall not order motion if, (a) applicant’s under subsection trial, after review of the record of the possibility the court determines that there is no reasonable testing produce exculpatory would evidence that: (i) applicant's would establish the actual innocence of the offense convicted; applicant for which the was 9543.1(d) (emphasis supplied). § 42 Pa.C.S.A. from precluded by conclude that his confession Appellant testing case that DNA would establishing prima facie Consequently, establish his actual innocence. because not address the adequately question lower courts did met requirements whether Section 9543.1(d)(2)(i), of our that a light present holding ability confession is not a se bar to a convicted individual’s per innocence, prove to seek DNA his or her actual anew, this question, upon PCRA court is to consider remand. reversed. remanded to the for Superior Order Case Court remand to the PCRA court. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Former not participate Justice GREENSPAN did decision of this case. *28 SAYLOR,
Chief Justice CASTILLE and BAER Justices join and the opinion. McCAFFERY a concurring
Chief Justice CASTILLE files opinion. Justice EAKIN files a and concurring dissenting opinion. CASTILLE, Chief Justice concurring.
I join Madame Todd’s Majority Opinion Justice in its entire- I write ty. separately only to the express following point. In summarizing appellant’s arguments, the Majority notes the upon secondary reliance sources regarding exonerations and, across the nation specifically, Pennsylvania three state prosecutions Godschalk, involving Yarns, defendants named and Laughman. 40-41, Majority Op. A.3d at 809-10 & n. 9. Majority sets forth both appellant’s and arguments the federal manner, decisions in those cases in a descriptive without to purporting descriptions, endorse the which I be- lieve proper is the course. I have difficulty no with the notion confessions, of false reality or with the that there persons are confessed, convicted, who have and have been who were addition, actually course, innocent. In I see the wisdom in attack, a statute that allows for DNA on collateral testing however, a claim support of actual innocence. I am wary, at face value accepting characterizations of cases as represent- innocence” or “exoneration” of “actual ing determinations Moreover, I am been made. judicial finding no has when such work, in incentive at both defense litigation cognizant sup- and advocacy persons organizations providing and in the literature, exaggerate significance studies and porting that fall short of a judicial are determinations usually of what trial, A of a new like a grant of “actual innocence.” finding to reprosecute, determination not subsequent prosecutorial of actual inno- necessarily represent not a determination does cence.1 EAKIN, concurring dissenting.
Justice
allocatur to
granted
clarify
holding
We
Common-
(Pa.Super.2005),
57 just A confession is one of the measure of evidence aspect which of innocence under 42 may preclude finding Pa.C.S. § per establishing 9543.1. While it is not a se bar to inno- cence, a confession which has been deemed voluntary may lend itself to such a conclusion. The circumstances surround- ing may the confession also contribute to the measure of § evidence sufficient to innocence require- overcome 9543.1’s is, all, A just evidentiary ment. confession after of the piece 1072, Young, record. See Commonwealth v. 767 A.2d 1077 (Eakin, J., (Pa.Super.2001) dissenting). The measure of evi- dence an actual precluding finding innocence should be determined an totality evaluation of the circum- stances, the test which criminal guides procedure most deter- minations.1
Appellant confessed to raping, robbing, murdering victim, statement, as well as In burglarizing her home. this wearing noted he was a black Bulls sweat- Chicago shirt, pair jeans, of blue and Fila sneakers. Police recov- ered these items from Appellant’s home. Tests revealed the jeans sweatshirt and were with the victim’s blood. splattered crotch, jeans also had a stain on the which appeared consistent with a combination of Appellant’s seminal fluid and fluids; however, bodily victim’s the source of the fluid See, Housman, 596, 822, e.g., Commonwealth v. 604 Pa. 986 A.2d 840- (2009) (applying totality determining 41 of circumstances confes voluntariness); Patton, 307, sion's Commonwealth v. 604 Pa. 985 A.2d 1283, (2009) ("we review”); per 1288 n. 3 do not favor se rules error Allshouse, 61, 847, (2009) Commonwealth v. 604 Pa. 985 A.2d 871 (Baer, J., concurring) (applying totality determining of circumstances in interrogation); whether statement elicited at custodial Commonwealth Sherwood, 92, 483, (2009) v. (determining 603 Pa. 982 A.2d 29n. cause); 1, 1191, probable Spotz, Commonwealth v. Pa. 896 A.2d (2006) (determining prosecution peremptory 1211-14 whether used women); Davido, 52, challenges to exclude v. Commonwealth 582 Pa. 431, (2005) (determining A.2d 438-39 whether defendant invoked 587, right self-representation); Flanagan, Commonwealth v. 578 Pa. 489, (2004) (determining plea’s validity); 854 A.2d 500-04 Common Reid, 1, 530, (2002) (determining wealth v. 571 Pa. 811 A.2d 545-46 D.M., 445, search); voluntariness consent to In re 566 Pa. 781 A.2d 1161, (2001) (determining suspicion); 1163-64 reasonable Common Fisher, (2001) (determin wealth v. 564 Pa. 769 A.2d 1127-28 identification). ing independent basis for *30 of the limitations identified because conclusively
could not be
in 1991.
testing
statement, but the
his
Appellant
suppress
filed a motion
knowing
voluntary.
it was
and
court concluded
suppression
confession,
trial,
presented Appellant’s
At
the Commonwealth
blood was found on the
establishing
DNA evidence
the victim’s
testimony from
jeans
eyewitness
in Appellant’s possession,
enter the victim’s home
people
Appellant
two
who saw
murder,
from
witnesses to
testimony
two
night
Notwithstand-
whom
made
statements.
Appellant
inculpatory
reliance on
Court
misplaced
Young,
Superior
its
ing
I
overwhelming.
agree.
the evidence was
suggested
is not a case
the evidence
seeks to
Appellant
This
where
on
have tested will
to the actual killer. The stain
point
jeans, regardless
origin,
Appellant
cannot show
Appellant’s
victim;
DNA evidence establish-
rape
did not
and murder
the stain was not
would not demonstrate his
ing
Appellant’s
actual innocence. As
Justice Roberts indicated Dis-
Chief
Osborne, 557
Attorney’s
trict
The Third Jud. Dist. v.
Officefor
2316,
(2009),
Accordingly, would not remand for further proceedings,
but would affirm the denial of relief. case of his or her innocence. notes prima Appellant facie barring that the statute does contain restrictions express court’s of DNA in certain situations such as grant testing technology testing where the existed for such at the time that, trial and was not utilized. contends had the Appellant to enact a in cases where a legislature prohibition wished confessed, so; it have done there- easily defendant has could fore, its omission must be viewed as deliberate and indicative of its intent not to bar defendants who have confessed from access to DNA to establish their actual innocence. testing further observes that this section was passed the aftermath of exonerations DNA well-publicized by crimes, especially of individuals who had confessed to that of He directs our attention to the remarks made Godschalk. Greenleaf, Senator Stewart the Chairman of the Pennsylvania Committee, in 2001 Judiciary hearing Senate who conducted subject exonerations, on the who was post conviction of this as evidence of the principal sponsor legislation, General Assembly’s intent to facilitate broad access to conviction post testing having potential the scientific to demonstrate actual innocence with its enactment of 9543.1.10 Ap- Section gave following Greenleaf floor Senator remarks from Senate passage on the occasion of the of Section 9543.1: