Apparently, Lambert does not realize the import of the decision of the court of appeals in all of its respects. All of the district court's findings were vacated on appeal. If no relief is granted in the state courts, whatever federal district court judge would be presented with a habeas corpus petition filed on behalf of Lambert, including the district judge who erroneously held a hearing on Lambert's prematurely filed, mixed petition, will be required to presume that all factual determinations made by the state courts are correct unless Lambert could rebut the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence. Moreover, any district court judge considering a properly filed petition of Lambert's will be required to give deference to legal conclusions made on her claims by the state courts. Relative to paragraph 6, what the Commonwealth may do elsewhere does not mean it must do that here or in all or any other cases.
Criminal cases are particularly unique, each one being sui generis .
Further, as has already been stated in this response, the habeas appellants took many positions on appeal. At this stage of the proceedings, only the facts are relevant. Further, the Third Circuit also opined that maybe Lambert's claims are not barred by the PCRA's statute of limitations. Given the necessarily fact-specific nature of a statute of limitations inquiry, Lambert's claim is premature. Motion 9, n.3.