### J

- S05032

- 22

NON

- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

- SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JAMES R. CRUZ, JR.

Appellant :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 643 MDA 2021

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered April 19 , 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County Criminal Division at

No(s): CP

- 14

- CR

- 0001246

- 1993

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., STABILE, J., and DUBOW, J.

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED APRIL 14, 2022

Appellant, James R. Cruz, Jr., appeals from the April 19 , 2021 Order

dismissing his second Petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act

(“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541

- 46, as meritless. After careful review, we

affirm.

A prior panel of this cou rt set forth the relevant facts and procedural

history of this case as follows:

Cruz was convicted of criminal homicide and theft on June 14,

1994[,] and was sentenced to life imprisonment. At trial, the

Commonwealth entered evidence relating to a number of hairs,

recovered during the underlying criminal investigation, which

implicated Cruz in the murder. Specifically, hair identified as

belonging to the victim was found in the cab of Cruz’s truck, and

hair identified as belonging to Cruz was found on the ropes that

had been used to bind and fatally strangle the victim.

To establish that the recovered hairs belonged to Cruz and to the

victim, the Commonwealth relied, in part, on microscopic hair

analysis. FBI Agent Chester Blythe testified at trial regard ing the

use of microscopic hair analysis as a forensic method. In this

### J

- S05032

- 22

- 2

-

testimony, Agent Blythe drew scientific conclusions that

implicated Cruz in the murder of the victim. It is this testimony

that forms the basis of Cruz’s [] PCRA petition.

Per an agre ement with the Innocence Project, the Department of

Justice (“DOJ”) ordered the FBI to undertake a review of cases

that involved microscopic hair analysis, including Cruz’s

conviction. As a result of that review, the DOJ issued a letter on

June 8, 2015[, 1 

### ] that identified several areas in which Agent

Blythe’s testimony exceeded the scientific limitations of

microscopic hair analysis. A copy of the DOJ letter was

subsequently provided to Cruz and prompted [Cruz to file a] PCRA

petition [, his second, on Ma rch 10, 2015]

.

Commonwealth v. Cruz , No. 1728 MDA 2016 , 1

- 2 (Pa. Super. filed Sept.

29, 2017).

Acknowledging that this PCRA petition was untimely on its face, Cruz

asserted that the DOJ letter reflected a “newly

- discovered fact” pursuant to

42 Pa.C.S. § 9 545(b)(1)(ii), and could, thus, serve as an excuse to the

untimeliness of the petition. The PCRA court disagreed with Cruz and, on

January 5, 2017, dismissed Cruz’s second PCRA petition as untimely. On

September 29, 2017, this Court affirmed. Cruz , No. 1728 MDA 2016. The

Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted Cruz’s petition for allowance of appeal,

reversed the Superior Court, and remanded to the PCRA court for

reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court’s holding in Commonwealth v.

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

1 

### The DOJ l etter followed an April 20, 2015 FBI press release regarding the

pervasive inaccuracy of FBI analysis’ testimony related to microscopic hair

analysis.

### J

- S05032

- 22

- 3

-

Chmiel , 173 A.3d 617 (Pa. 2017). 2 

### See Commonwealth v. Cruz , 183 A.3d

348 (Pa. 2018).

Following remand, the PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s Petition without

a hearing finding that, even in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Chmiel

,

Appellant’s Petition was untimely. See PCRA Ct. Op., 12/14/18, at 1

- 2

(unpaginated). The PCRA court reasoned that Appellant’s 60

- day t ime limit

for asserting the newly

- discovered fact exception started on April 20, 2015,

the date of the FBI press release. The PCRA court determined that Appellant’s

PCRA Petition, dated September 10, 2015, was , therefore, untimely. On

November 15, 2019, this Court reversed the order dismissing Appellant’s

Petition as untimely and remanded the case once again to the PCRA court for

a determination of the merits

. See Commonwealth v. Cruz

, 223 A.3d 274

(Pa. Super. 2019).

On July 27, 2020, the PCRA court ord ered the Commonwealth to file a

motion to dismiss Appellant’s Petition within 60 days. The order also provided

that “by agreement of the parties, the [c]ourt will decide the issues raised [in

the motion] on briefs and without a hearing.” Order, 7/27/20. The

Commonwealth timely filed its motion and accompanying brief, and Appellant

filed a timely response. On March 5, 2021, after considering the submissions

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

2 

### I n Chmiel

, the Court held that the DOJ press release announcing the FBI’s

admissions “that its examiners gave flawed and scientifically unsupportable

testimony” wh ich it spread to state and local analysis, constituted a newly

discovered fact for purposes of overcoming the PCRA’s jurisdictional time bar.

Chmiel , 173 A. 3d at 626.

### J

- S05032

- 22

- 4

-

of the parties, the PCRA court issued notice of its intent to dismiss Appellant’s

Petition pursuan t to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 without further proceedings in

accordance with the “agreement of the parties to consider the matter on briefs

and without [an] evidentiary hearing” and “having found no genuine issues

concerning any material fact.” Rule 907 Notice, 3 /5/21.

On March 25, 2021, Appellant filed a response to the court’s Rule 907

Notice. By Order filed on April 19, 2021 , the PCRA court responded to

Appellant’s Rule 907 response and dismissed Appellant’s Petition.

This timely followed. Appellant comp lied with the PCRA court’s order to

file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement and the court filed a Rule 1925(a) Opinion

referring this Court to the reasons stated in the Rule 907 Notice.

Appellant raises the following four issues on appeal:

1. Did the PCRA [c]ourt for the third time[] dismiss the PCRA

Petition without a merits review hearing where [Appellant] was

otherwise entitled to the same, in violation of Commonwealth

v. Chmiel or other controlling case law.?

2. Did the PCRA [c]ourt for the third time[] dismiss t he PCRA

Petition on the basis of insufficient after

- discovered evidence

which should have been addressed in the previous two

dismissals, causing an unnecessary 6

- year delay, three appeals

to the Superior court and two appeals to the Supreme Court

thereby c reating an abuse of proceeding that resulted in a

violation of [Appellant’s] due process rights?

3. Did the PCRA [c]ourt misstate the facts?

4. Did the PCRA [c]ourt incorrectly find that [Appellant] was

required to claim innocence on the basis this was a second

PCRA Petition when in fact the first PCRA Petition went 15 years

with no action because his counsel abandoned him[] and was

never reviewed on the merits due to the delay caused by the

abandonment?

### J

- S05032

- 22

- 5

-

Appellant’s Brief at 4.

We review the denial of a PCRA Petition to determine whether the record

supports the PCRA court’s findings and whether its order is otherwise free of

legal error. Commonwealth v. Fears , 86 A.3d 795, 803 (Pa. 2014). This

Court grants great deference to th e findings of the PCRA court if they are

supported by the record. Commonwealth v. Boyd , 923 A.2d 513, 515 (Pa.

Super. 2007). “Further, the PCRA court’s credibility determinations are

binding on this Court, where there is record support for those determin ations.”

Commonwealth v. Anderson , 995 A.2d 1184, 1189 (Pa. Super. 2010). We

give no such deference, however, to the court’s legal conclusions.

Commonwealth v. Paddy

, 15 A.3d 431, 442 (Pa. 201 1 ).

To be eligible for relief pursuant to the PCRA, Appellan t must establish,

inter alia, that his conviction or sentence resulted from one or more of the

enumerated errors or defects found in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2). Appellant

must also establish that the issues raised in the PCRA petition have not been

previousl y litigated or waived. Id. at § 9543(a)(3).

Relevant here, the PCRA provides relief for a petitioner who

demonstrates his conviction or sentence resulted from “[t]he unavailability at

the time of trial of exculpatory evidence that has subsequently become

available and would have changed the outcome of the trial if it had been

introduced.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)(vi). To establish a claim of after

discovered evidence, a petitioner must prove that the evidence : “(1) could not

have been obtained prior to the conclusion of the trial by exercise of

### J

- S05032

- 22

- 6

-

reasonable diligence; (2) is not merely corroborative or cumulative; (3) will

not be used solely to impeach the credibility of a witness ; and (4) would likely

result in a different verdict if a new trial were granted .” Commonwealth v.

Tedford

, 228 A.3d 891, 911 (Pa. 20 20 ) (citation s omitted). The four

- part

test is conjunctive and if one prong is not satisfied, there is no need to analyze

the remaining prongs. See Comm onwealth v. Pagan , 950 A.2d 270, 293

(Pa. 2008).

There is no right to a PCRA hearing; a hearing is unnecessary where the

PCRA court can determine from the record that there are no genuine issues of

material fact. Commonwealth v. Jones , 942 A.2d 903, 906 (Pa. Super.

2008). “With respect to the PCRA court’s decision to deny a request for an

evidentiary hearing, or to hold a limited evidentiary hearing, such a decision

is within the discretion of the PCRA court and will not be overturned absent

an abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Mason , 130 A.3d 601, 617 (Pa.

2015).

Although Appellant has presented four distinct questions for our review,

his counseled brief contains only two sections of argument titled “Genuine

Issue of Material Fact, Misstatement of Facts” and “Violation of Due Process.”

Notwithstanding this violation of Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a), which requires that an

appellant divide the argument “ into as many parts as there are questions to

be argued,” we consider the arguments raised within each section to the

extent that we can discern them and that they are “fairly suggested” by the

statement of questions involved

. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a), 2116(a).

### J

- S05032

- 22

- 7

-

In the “Genuine Issue of Material Fact, Misstatement of Facts” section,

Appellant claims that the PCRA c ourt erred in dismissing his PCRA petition

without holding a hearing on its merits. Appellant’s Brief at 13

- 14. Appellant

also asserts that there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding the

relevance to the crime of “physical hair evidence collecte d

. ” Id. at 11. He

further asserts that the PCRA court ’s conclusion that there was “substantial”

evidence outside of the hair analysis testimony to support the jury’s verdict

“misstates the entire case[,]” especially where there was purportedly an

alternative viable suspect who authorities were unable to loca te. Id. at 15

-

16.

Appellant’s assertion that the PCRA court erred in dismissing his petition

without a hearing lacks merit as that the parties stipulated to the court

resolving the issues on the briefs without a hearing. Moreover, it is well

settled th at a PCRA hearing is unnecessary where the PCRA court can

determine from the record that there are no genuine issues of material fact.

Here, as explained below, it was apparent to the PCRA court that Appellant

did not present any genuine issues of materia l fact necessitating an

evidentiary hearing. Thus, the PCRA court did not err or abuse its discretion

in dismissing Appellant’s petition without holding a hearing.

With respect to Appellant’s other claims, f ollowing our review, we

conclude that the reco rd belies Appellant’s claim that the PCRA court misstated

the facts of record and reached an erroneous conclusion. The Honorable

Jonathan D. Grine, sitting as the PCRA court, has authored a comprehensive,

### J

- S05032

- 22

- 8

-

thorough, and well

- reasoned Rule 907 Notice, citin g the record , including the

relevant testimony, and relevant case law in addressing Appellant’s claim. The

record supports the PCRA court’s findings

, and the Rule 907 Notice is

otherwise free of legal error. We, thus, affirm on the basis of the PCRA cour t’s

March 5, 2021 Rule 907 Notice , which outlines the substantial evidence

presented at trial that it was Appellant who committed the crimes and then

properly concludes that the after

- discovered evidence would not likely result

in a different verdict

. See Rule 907 Notice, 3/5/21, at 5

- 6, 1 0 (concluding

that it properly dismissed Appellant’s PCRA Petition because Appellant failed

to demonstrate that a new trial would likely result in a different verdict

because: (1) Agent Blythe’s “testimony concerning the microscopic hair

analysis was but one piece of evidence in the context of a seven day trial ;”

(2) “ just under 50 witnesses [testified] , and, overall, there was ample

evidence ” including evidence of Appellant’s DNA present in semen and

spermatozoa obtained from the victim’s body and her underwear “ upon which

the jury returned the guilty verdict ; ” and (3) Agent Blythe’s testimony

regarding the hair analysis “was thoroughly mitigated by cross

examination

. ” ).

In the section of his brief entitled “Violation of Due Process

, ” Appellant

complains that “excessive delay[] and repeated dismissals

, ” together with the

PCRA court’s refusal to hold a hearing on the merits of the instant petition,

resulted in the violation of his due process rights. A ppellant’s Brief at 16

- 18.

### J

- S05032

- 22

- 9

-

Appellant has not cited in his brief to the place in the record where he

preserved this claim . This is a v iolation of Pa.R.A.P. 2119(c) (requiring citation

to the record) and , moreover, o ur review of the record indicates that Appellant

has raised this issue for the first time on appeal. Accordingly, he has waived

it. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues not raised in the [lower] court are waived

and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”).

In sum, the record supports the trial court’s f indings. Accordingly, the

court did not err in dismissing Appellant’s PCRA petition without a hearing.

Order affirmed. The parties are instructed to attach a copy of the PCRA

court’s March 5, 2021 Rule 907 Notice to all future filings.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 04/14/2022**Circulated 03/25/2022** **01:07 PM** **McGraw Trialonas** **IN THE** **COURT OF** **COMMON PLEAS** **OF CENTRE** **COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA** **CRIMINAL ACTION** **— LAW** **COMMONWEALTH OF** **PENNSYLVANIA V.** **JAMES ROBERT** **CRUZ, JR.,** **Defendant Petitioner** **CP-14-CR- 1246-1993** **Attorney for** **Commonwealth: Sean** **McGraw, Es0&** **_*e****Attorney for** **Defendant/Petitioner: Steven** **P. Trialonaff** **guire3 NOTICE** **OF INTENTION** **TO DISMISS** **PCRA PURSUANVT•Or'"** **-- PENNSYLVANIA** **RULE OF** **CRIMINAL PROCEDURE** **907(1) ON** **N_ r** **CA On** **November 15,** **2019 ,** **the Superior** **Court reversed** **this Court** **s dismissal** **of Defendant** **James Cruz's** **("Petitioner") Post-conviction** **Relief Act** **Petition ("PCRA")** **under 42** **Pa. C.S.A.** **§9541 et** **seq, based** **on the** **untimeliness of** **the petition** **and remanded** **the matter** **for further** **proceedings. Counsel** **agreed to** **submit the** **matter on** **briefs and** **without hearing** **and the** **Court directed** **the parties** **to file** **briefs in** **an Order** **entered on** **July 31** **, 2020** **. The** **Commonwealth filed** **an Amended** **Motion to** **Dismiss Second** **or Subsequent** **Post-conviction Relief** **Act Petition** **and Brief** **in Support** **on September** **25, 2020.** **On December** **1, 2020** **, Petitioner** **filed a** **Brief in** **Opposition. Petitioner** **raised only** **one issue** **in this** **PCRA asserting** **he was** **provided ineffective** **assistance of** **counsel regarding** **the FBI** **Agent Chester** **Blythe s** **testimony regarding** **microscopic hair** **comparison .** **Counsel for** **Petitioner and** **an Assistant** **District Attorney** **representing the** **Centre County** **District Attorney's** **office reached** **a stipulation** **which was** **provided to** **the Court.** **Counsel stipulated** **that Petitioner** **withdrew his** **claim based** **on ineffective** **assistance of** **counsel and** **substituted his** **PCRA claim** **under 42** **Pa. C.S.A.** **§ 9543(a)(2)(vi)** **based on** **the purported** **exculpatory evidence** **that has** **subsequently become** **available and** **would have** **changed the** **DO ORD** **DS aik'M9CaCFl.B'.** **•..s]v•P••'.^'sww.nsns•s•ana•:•4naew+•ww•.4'ss raw.nvaewvs+•ww.w.** **ti..aw+wr:wr_.u•o-.•w, •r•** **nr<nw.^•:" .•** **+.•. ,.,** **•:•.2::..+ ::** **:.+ outcome** **of the** **trial if** **it had** **been introduced.** **Petitioner filed** **the instant** **PCRA based** **on the** **Federal Bureau** **of Investigation's** **("FBI") letter** **to him** **regarding Agent** **Chester Blythe's** **testimony concerning** **microscopic hair** **comparison at** **his jury** **trial which** **occurred in** **June, 1994.** **The FBI** **undertook to** **scrutinize the** **testimony of** **FBI analysts** **concerning microscopic** **hair analysis** **prior to** **2000 and** **based upon** **this investigation,** **the FBI** **concluded that** **its examiners'** **testimony "`in** **at least** **90% of** **cases contained** **erroneous statements'** **and that** **its analysts** **`committed widespread,** **systematic error,** **grossly exaggerating** **the significance** **of their** **data under** **oath with** **the consequence** **of unfairly** **bolstering the** **prosecution' s** **case .""** **Com. v.** **Chmiel, 173** **A.3d 61.7,** **621 (Pa.** **2017). Upon** **consideration of** **Petitioner's PCRA,** **the briefs** **submitted by** **the parties,** **and after** **review of** **Petitioner's file,** **the Court** **intends to** **dismiss the** **PCRA as** **there are** **no genuine** **issues concerning** **any material** **fact and** **Petitioner is** **not entitled** **to post-conviction** **collateral relief** **for the** **reasons that** **follow. Background** **On March** **23, 1993,** **the body** **of a** **young deceased** **female was** **found at** **6:20 in** **the morning** **by a** **passing motorist.** **The female** **was partially** **undressed and** **her body** **was on** **top of** **snow, near** **an on** **ramp for** **Pennsylvania State** **Route 26,** **about one** **and one-half** **miles south** **of the** **Interstate Route** **80 in** **Centre County,** **Pennsylvania. Tire** **tracks were** **noticed at** **the berm** **near the** **body which** **appeared to** **be fresh** **tracks from** **a large** **vehicle. Investigating** **officers made** **castings of** **those tracks.** **The deceased** **female was** **identified as.seventeen-year** **old Dawn** **Birnbaum who** **had run** **away from** **the Elan** **School in** **Poland Spring,** **Maine. Ms.** **Birnbaum was** **Iast seen** **at a** **truck stop** **in Maine** **where she** **had been** **making calls** **on a** **pay phone** **and then** **was observed** **running 2** **toward the** **trucks. Subsequent** **autopsy and** **lab testing** **of Ms.** **Birnbaum revealed** **her cause** **of death** **was homicide** **by ligature** **strangulation. Spermatozoa** **and seminal** **fluid were** **found in** **her vagina,** **anus, and** **on her** **underwear. Lab** **testing revealed** **the male** **who was** **the source** **of the** **bodily fluids** **was a** **Type A** **secretor meaning** **the individual** **secretes his** **blood type** **antigens into** **his bodily** **fluids. Not** **all individuals** **secrete their** **blood type** **antigens into** **their bodily** **fluids; it** **is a** **genetic trait.** **Additionally, during** **examination of** **the body,** **a hair** **was found** **under the** **rope that** **was wrapped** **around Ms.** **Birnbaum's neck** **and hairs** **were found** **on the** **clothing and** **body. Based** **on the** **last known** **whereabouts of** **the victim,** **the location** **of the** **deceased body** **being near** **a major** **interstate, and** **the large** **tire tracks** **found near** **the body,** **the investigators** **looked into** **what trucks** **were present** **at the** **truck stop** **in Maine** **where Ms.** **Birnbaum was** **last seen** **alive making** **telephone calls** **and collected** **fuel receipts** **from there** **and truck** **stops near** **where the** **body was** **found in** **Pennsylvania. (Tr.** **Randy Cohick** **6/8/1994 at** **98-100). Investigators** **were able** **to confirm** **that Ms.** **Birnbaum was** **at the** **Dysart truck** **stop in** **Maine through** **telephone records** **as she** **phoned her** **counselor at** **the Elan** **School to** **check in.** **(Tr. William** **Madden 6/8/1.994** **at 228;** **Mark Rosenburg** **6/6/1994 at** **154-155). After** **comparing the** **receipts, the** **investigators were.able** **to determine** **that Petitioner,** **James Cruz** **with Century** **trucking had** **purchased fuel** 

### in**both locations.** **(Tr. 6/8/1994** **Cohick at** **100). The** **tires on** **the tractor** **trailer operated** **by Mr.** **Cruz were** **consistent in** **pattern with** **the tire** **casts collected** **from the** **berm where** **Ms. Birnbaum's** **body was** **found. Jr.** **6/8/1994 Cohick** **at 100-101;** **Mark Brothers** **6/6/1994 at** **94-97). Evidence** **further reflected** **the Petitioner** **falsified his** **travel logs** **to reflect** **that he** **was in** **Altoona, Pennsylvania** **on the** **evening of** **March 23** **and off** **duty from** **6:30 p.m.** **until 11:00** **a.m. the** **following day.** **(Tr. 6/8/1994** **Madden at** **239.239). When** **Petitioner 3** **was shown** **a photo** **of Ms.** **Birnbaum he** **denied having** **ever met** **her although** **the DNA** **evidence demonstrated** **that his** **DNA was** **collected from** **her vagina,** **anus, and** **underwear. Jr.** **Cohick 6/8/1994** **at 117).** **Evidence was** **collected from** **the truck** **including hairs,** **fibers, and** **debris. The** **evidence collected** **from the** **truck and** **the hairs** **found on** **Ms. Birnbaum's** **body were** **sent to** **the. FBI** **for analysis** **along with** **sample hairs** **from Ms.** **Birnbaum and** **Petitioner. Petitioner** **was charged** **with murder,** **kidnapping, rape,** **involuntary deviate** **sexual intercourse,** **robbery, and** **theft. A** **jury trial** **was held** **and on** **June 6,** **1994 through** **June 14,** **1994 at** **the conclusion** **of which** **the jury** **found Petitioner** **guilty of** **murder of** **the first** **degree and** **theft and** **not guilty** **of the** **other charges.** **Prior to** **the start** **of the** **trial, Petitioner** **filed Motions** **in Limine** **to preclude** **evidence that** **random checks** **at the** **FBI had** **revealed no** **inaccuracies in** **Agent Blythe's** **prior hair** **analysis conclusions,** **and opinion** **evidence "about** **the statistical** **probabilities of** **Petitioner's hair** **being found** **on decedent's** **neck coupled** **with decedent's** **hair being** **found in** **the Petitioner's** **truck." The** **motion was** **granted in** **an Order** **entered on** **June 6,** **1994, providing:** **"Witness will** **not be** **allowed to** **testify about** **statistical probabilities** **or the** **lack thereof** **or to** **make reference** **to how** **great they** **may or** **may not** **be of** **finding said** **hairs in** **their relevant** **places coincidently."** **Discussion Pursuant** **to the** **stipulation of** **counsel, Petitioner** **is making** **the instant** **PCRA claim** **under Section** **9543(a)(2)(vi) which** **provides: (a)** **General rule.--To** **be eligible** **for relief** **under this** **subchapter, the** **petitioner must** **plead and** **prove by** **a preponderance** **of the** **evidence all** **of the** **following: (2)** **That the** **conviction or** **sentence resulted** **from one** **or more** **of the** **following: 4** **(vi) The** **unavailability at** **the time** **of trial** **of exculpatory** **evidence that** **has subsequently** **become available** **and would** **have changed** **the outcome** **of the** **trial if** **it had** **been introduced.** **42 Pa.C.S.** **§ 9543(a)(2)(vi).** **in Commonwealth** **v Tedford,** **the Pennsylvania** **Supreme Court** **analyzed a.** **PCRA petition** **under Section** **9543(a)(2)(vi) concerning** **microscopic hair** **comparison testimony** **after Chmiel** **and applied** **the following** **four-part test:** **To obtain** **relief under** **the PCRA** **on an** **after-discovered evidence** **claim, a** **Petitioner must** **demonstrate that** **the evidence;** **(1) could** **not have** **been obtained** **prior to** **the conclusion** **of the** **trial by** **the exercise** **of reasonable** **diligence; (2)** **is not** **merely corroborative** **or cumulative;** **(3) will** **not be** **used solely** **to impeach** **the credibility** **of a** **witness; and** **(4) would** **likely result** **in a** **different verdict** **if a** **new trial** **were granted.** **Com. v.** **Tedford, 228** **A.3d 891,** **911 (Pa.** **2020) citing** **Com. v** **Small, 189** **A.3d 961,** **969 (Pa.** **2018); Com.** **v. Pagan,** **950 A.2d** **270, 292** **(Pa. 2008).** **Additionally, the** **Court notes** **that Petitioner** **is not** **claiming innocence** **and the** **instant PCRA** **is not** **Petitioner's first** **PCRA. Pennsylvania** **appellate courts** **have noted,** **"In.a second** **or subsequent** **post-conviction proceeding,** **all issues** **are waived** **except those** **which implicate** **a Petitioner's** **innocence or** **which raise** **the possibility** **that the** **proceedings resulting** **in conviction** **were so** **unfair that** **a miscarriage** **of justice** **which no** **civilized society** **can tolerate** **occurred." Com** **v. Williams,** **660 A.2d** **614, 618** **(Pa. Super.** **1995). To** **establish a** **prima facie** **showing of** **entitlement to** **relief, a** **PCRA petitioner** **must demonstrate** **"either that** **the proceedings** **which resulted** **in his** **conviction were** **so unfair** **that a** **miscarriage of** **justice occurred** **which no** **civilized society** **could tolerate,** **or that** **he was** **innocent of** **the crimes** **for which** **he was** **charged." Com_** **v. Medina,** **92 A.3d** **1210 (Pa.** **Super. 2014)** **citing Com** **v. Allen,** **732 A.3d** **582, 586** **(Pa. 1999).** **Here, the** **testimony concerning** **the microscopic** **hair comparison** **was but** **one piece** **of 5** **evidence in** **the context** **of a** **seven day** **trial with,** **by the** **Court's count,** **just under** **50 witnesses,** **and, overall,** **there was** **ample evidence** **upon which** **the jury** **returned the** **guilty verdict** **against Petitioner.** **Mr. Blythe's** **testimony regarding** **hair comparison** **constituted about** **45 pages** **of the** **voluminous record,** **including 8** **pages of** **voir dire,** **12 pages** **of direct** **examination, and** **25 pages** **of cross** **examination in** **the framework** **of approximately** **1295 total** **pages of** **the trial** **record. In** **considering the** **record evidence,** **the Court** **concludes that** **Petitioner has** **failed to** **demonstrate the** **fourth element** **of the** **test set** **forth in** **Tedford because** **Petitioner has** **not demonstrated** **by a** **preponderance of** **evidence the** **verdict would** **likely be** **different if** **a new** **trial were** **granted. Moreover,** **Mr. Blythe's** **testimony was** **rather conservative** **and was** **undoubtedly mitigated** **by defense** **counsel's effective** **and thorough** **cross-examination as** **reviewed below.** **By way** **of summarizing** **key evidence** **and for** **context in** **considering the** **evidentiary record** **as a** **whole, the** **testimony on** **the first** **day of** **trial, June** **6, 1994,** **of Isiadore** **Mihalkis is** **helpful. Mr.** **Mihalkis was** **a medical** **doctor with** **a subspecialty** **in forensic** **pathology. Dr.** **Mihalkis was** **contacted by** **Centre County** **Coroner Kerry** **Benninghoff to** **perform an** **autopsy on** **Ms. Birnbaum's** **body. The** **autopsy was** **performed on** **March 25,** **1993. Dr.** **Mihalkis testified** **that when** **the rope** **was removed** **from the** **neck there** **was a** **hair beneath** **the knot** **and it** **was removed,** **photographed and** **surrendered to** **the police.** **Also hairs** **adhering to** **the clothing** **and body** **were collected** **and surrendered** **to the** **police. Swabs** **were taken** **and smears** **made into** **slides from** **Ms. Birnbaum's** **gums, throat,** **labia, vagina,** **and anus** **and they** **were provided** **to the** **police with** **instructions to** **keep them** **frozen until** **testing could** **be performed.** **Chester Blythe** **testified on** **the second** **day of** **the trial,** **June 7,** **1994. (Tr.** **6/7/1994 at** **109-159). At** **that time,** **Mr. Blythe** **had been** **employed as** **a special** **agent with** **the FBI** **for twenty-two** **years having** **joined the** **FBI in** **1972. He** **graduated from** **undergraduate school** **6 where** **he earned** **a major** **and minor** **in physical** **sciences and** **joined the** **FBI thereafter.** **He completed** **agent's training** **in Quantico,** **Virginia and** **was then** **assigned to** **the Indianapolis** **Field Office** **as a** **field agent** **for five** **and one-half** **years. Thereafter,** **he was** **reassigned to** **the FBI** **laboratory in** **Washington, specifically,** **in the** **microscopic analysis** **unit where** **he was** **trained to** **conduct comparisons** **and identifications** **of hair** **and textile** **fibers. At** **the time** **of his** **testimony, Mr.** **Blythe was** **assigned to** **the forensic** **science training** **center in** **Quantico, Virginia.** **Mr. Blythe** **was provided** **with evidence** **for testing** **including specimen** **Q-8 which** **was debris** **removed from** **the passenger** **side of** **the door** **of Petitioner's** **truck and** **Q-24 which** **was a** **hair found** **under a** **ligature knot** **around Ms.** **Birnbaum's neck.** **Additionally, he** **was provided** **with sample** **hair being** **specimen K-3** **which was** **a head** **hair sample** **from Ms.** **Birnbaum and** **K-5 which** **was a** **head hair** **sample from** **Petitioner. Mr.** **Blythe testified** **that he** **used a** **comparison microscope** **which has** **two, side** **by side** **platforms so** **that he** **could place** **two slides** **next to** **each other** **and look.** **through the** **oculars to** **observe and** **compare the** **characteristics of** **each slide** **under magnification.** **He testified** **that there** **are approximately** **twenty-seven characteristics** **he rated** **when he** **analyzed and** **examined hair.** **Mr. Blythe** **stated for** **the jury,** **"Hair comparison** **is not** **like a** **fingerprint. It's** **not a** **positive means** **of identification.** **For example,** **if I** **take a** **fingerprint people** **can say** **that this** **is your** **and no** **one else's.** **I can't** **quite do** **that with** **hair. Hair** **is a** **very strong** **method of** **association or** **relating an** **individual to** **a hair.** **But it's** **not a** **positive means** **of association."** **(Tr, at** **121). Mr.** **Blythe concluded** **that the** **hair from** **Q-8 found** **in Petitioner's** **truck was** **consistent with** **having come** **from Ms.** **Birnbaum's head.** **(Tr. at** **130). He** **again stated** **that microscopic** **hair comparison** **is not** **like a** **fingerprint. (Tr.** **at 130).** **When comparing** **the hair** **from Ms.** **Birnbaum and** **Petitioner's samples,** **Mr. Blythe** **noted they** **were not** **alike. Mr.** **Blythe compared** **7 the** **hair from** **under the** **ligature knot** **and sample** **from Petitioner,** **and there** **were some** **similarities, but** **because of** **the limited** **sample size,** **consisting of** **only four** **hairs from** **the Petitioner,** **he was** **unable to** **establish the** **range of** **variation. As** **such, he** **notified the** **investigating officers** **that a** **larger sample** **from Petitioner** **would be** **required. Mr.** **Blythe was** **provided with** **a specimen** **which contained** **additional sample** **hairs from** **Petitioner. The** **additional sample** 

### hair**from Petitioner** **was sufficient** **for testing** **and Mr.** **Blythe concluded** **the hair** **found under** **the knot** **in the** **ligature around** **Ms. Birnbaum's** **neck. exhibited** **the same** **characteristics and** **was consistent** **with the** **hairs in** **the sample** **provided from** **Petitioner. (Tr.** **at 133).** **Mr. Blythe** **was thoroughly** **cross examined** **by Petitioner's** **counsel, Deborah** **Lux, Esquire,** **with regard** **to his** **conclusions concerning** **the hair** **comparisons. Jr.** **at 133-159).** **Mr. Blythe** **agreed that** **hair comparisons** **do not** **constitute a** **basis for** **absolute personal** **identification and** **he cannot** **definitely state** **that a** **hair belongs** **to a** **given individual.** **lie testified** **the inability** **to state** **that a** **hair belongs** **to a** **specific individual** **is because** **hairs are** **not individual** **enough, meaning** **the characteristics** **do not** **vary enough** **among different** **individuals to** **make a** **positive association.** **(Tr. at** **134). He** **also agreed** **with Attorney** **Lux that** **microscopic hair** **comparison is** **subjective. (Tr.** **at 135).** **Later in** **the cross** **examination, Mr.** **Blythe again** **agreed he** **could not** **testify that** **the hair** **under the** **knot around** **Ms. Birnbaum's** **neck was** **100 percent** **that of** **Petitioner (Tr.** **at 143).** **On review** **of the** **closing argument** **for defense,** **the Court** **notes Petitioner's** **other defense** **attorney, George** **Lepley, Esquire,** **repeatedly reminded** **the jury** **of the** **limitations of** **hair analysis** **as was** **set forth** **in the** **cross examination** **of Mr.** **Blythe which** **further minimized** **any possible** **overstatement of** **the significance** **of microscopic** **hair comparison** **in Mr.** **Blythe's testimony.** **(Tr. Atty.** **Lepley closing,** **6/13/1994, at** **98-135). 8** **On the** **third day** **of the** **trial, June** **8, 1994,** **Donald Bloser,** **a forensic** **scientist with** **the Pennsylvania** **State Police** **Crime Lab** **in Harrisburg,** **Pennsylvania testified.** **Mr. Bloser** **graduated with** **a Bachelor's** **Degree in** **chemistry from** **Lebanon Valley** **College and** **a Master's** **degree in** **chemistry from** **The Pennsylvania** **State University.** **He started** **working for** **the crime** **lab in** **January, 1980.** **Thereafter, he** **attended the** **FBI Academy** **for basic** **blood and** **semen identification.** **Additionally, he** **attended the** **FBI Academy** **for genetic** **maker identification** **and hair** **and fiber** **education. He** **testified after** **reviewing evidence** **collected, the** **vaginal and** **labial slides** **contained spermatozoa.** **Based on** **the number** **of sperm** **found in** **the vaginal** **slides, Mr.** **Bloser testified** **the intercourse** **occurred within** **twelve hours** **of the** **victim's death.** **Additionally, spermatozoa** **were found** **on the** **anal slides** **and in** **the underwear** **the victim** **was wearing** **when she** **was found** **on the** **snow bank.** **Mr. Bloser** **tested the** **Petitioner's blood** **sample and** **testified he** **was a** **Type A** **secretor with** **"PGM subtype** **2 plus."** **Mr. Bloser** **testified about** **32 percent** **of the** **population are** **Type A** **secretors and** **about 3** **percent of** **the population** **are PGM** **subtype 2** **plus. Based** **on Mr.** **Bloser's testing** **of Petitioner's** **blood, Petitioner** **could not** **be excluded** **from having** **been the** **source of** **the seminal** **stains collected** **in this** **case. (Tr.** **6/8/1994 at** **47-48). Importantly,** **the testimony** **concerning the** **hair comparison** **was cumulative** **of and** **far less** **probative than** **the DNA** **evidence which** **the jury** **heard at** **trial through** **the testimony** **of Scott** **F. Ermlick** **which was** **stipulated to** **by counsel** **and read** **into the** **record on.** **day three** **of the** **trial on** **June 8,** **1994. Mr.** **Ermlick was** **employed as** **a forensic** **science supervisor** **in the** **DNA unit** **at the** **Pennsylvania State** **Police Regional** **Laboratory in** **Greensburg, Pennsylvania.** **He assisted** **with the** **establishment of** **the DNA** **unit at** **the laboratory.** **He graduated** **from The** **Pennsylvania State** **University in** **1972 with** **a Bachelor** **of Science** **Degree and** **from the** **University of** **Pittsburgh with** **a Master's** **Degree in** **chemistry, biochemistry,** **genetics, and** **molecular biology.** **Mr. Ermlick** **9 opined** **that within** **a reasonable** **degree of** **scientific certainty,** **the DNA** **of Petitioner** **was present** **in the** **semen and** **spermatozoa which** **stained the** **area cut** **from the** **crotch of** **the panties** **on the** **victim's body.** **(Tr. 6/8/1994** **at 76).** **Further, he** **testified regarding** **the probabilities** **of the** **DNA match** **in various** **segments of** **the population,** **as such,** **the probability** **of finding** **an unrelated** **individual with** **the same** **DNA profile** **from the** **Caucasian population** **is approximately** **l in** **620 million;** **from the** **black population** **is 1** **in 2.7** **billion; from** **the Hispanic** **population in** **the southeastern** **part of** **the United** **States is** **1 in** **235 million;** **from the** **Hispanic population** **in the** **southwestern part** **of the** **country is** **l in** **200 million;** **and from** **a composite** **of all** **of the** **Hispanic population** **is 1** **in 72** **million. (Tr.** **at 76-77).** **Based on** **the review** **of the** **record in** **this matter** **as discussed** **above, the** **Court concludes** **the Petitioner** **is not** **entitled to** **relief under** **42 Pa.C.S.** **9543(a)(2)(vi) based** **on the** **unavailability of** **exculpatory evidence** **concerning Mr.** **Blythe's testimony** **that has** **subsequently become** **available as** **it clearly** **would not** **have changed** **the outcome** **of the** **trial. See** **Tedford supra.** **Petitioner failed** **under Section** **9543(a)(2)(vi) to** **prove by** **a. preponderance** **of evidence** **that the** **outcome of** **the trial** **would have** **been different** **had what** **Petitioner asserts** **is exculpatory** **evidence involving** **the hair** **comparison testimony** **been introduced** **at the** **trial. Mr.** **Blythe's. testimony** **was conservative** **on direct** **and was** **thoroughly mitigated** **by cross-examination.** **In sum,** **the substantial** **evidence as** **a whole,** **particularly the** **DNA evidence** **was compelling** **and supports** **the jury's** **verdict that** **James Cruz** **is guilty** **of murder** **of the** **first degree** **of Dawn** **Birnbaum and** **theft and** **Petitioner has** **not be** **subject to** **a manifest** **injustice in** **his jury** **trial. NOTICE** **and ORDER** **AND NOW,** **this day** **of March,** **2021, upon** **review of** **Petitioner James** **Robert Cruz's** **Post-Conviction Relief** **Act Petition,** **for the** **reasons set** **forth above,** **this Court** **having 10** **W found** **no genuine** **issues concerning** **any material** **fact, Defendant** **not being** **entitled to** **post conviction** **collateral relief,** **and finding** **no purpose** **would be** **served by** **further proceedings,** **and furthermore,** **by agreement** **of the** **parties to** **consider the** **matter on** **briefs and** **without evidentiary** **hearing, the** **Court intends** **to dismiss** **the PCRA** **without evidentiary** **hearing. Pursuant** **to Pennsylvania** **Rule of** **Criminal Procedure** **907(1), Defendant** **James Robert** **Cruz has** **hventy (20)** **days from** **the date** **of this** **notice to** **respond. BY** **THE COURT:** **athan D.** **Grine; Judge** **11**