Case ID: a3d_174/html/0562-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Howard William DEWEESE, Petitioner
    No. 387 MAL 2017
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    November 7, 2017
   AMENDED ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 7th day of November, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is:

Did the Superior Court err in denying PCRA relief where [Petitioner’s] trial counsel failed to preserve for direct appeal the testimony of 14 witnesses who were prevented by the trial court from offering exculpatory testimony that was crucial to the .defense .and that would have directly- contradicted the Commonwealth’s primary witnesses at trial?