Opinion ID: 621633
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Post-Conviction Relief Act (PCRA)

Text: In 1995, Lee filed a pro se petition for relief under the PCRA in the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County, Pennsylvania. Inexplicably, the Commonwealth did not comply with the court's order to file a response, and the petition sat dormant until the attorney who is now representing Lee in this case requested leave to file an amended petition in 2001. Lee's attorney also requested an order granting access to evidence and scientific records that were in the possession of the state police. The District Attorney consented to this disclosure, but the PCRA judge refused to allow it, stating merely that it was unduly burdensome on the State Police. App. at 103. Lee's attorney filed an amended petition for relief under the PCRA in 2005, which argued that (1) Lee was entitled to a new trial because of exculpatory evidence (in the form of newly discovered scientific information about fires) that was unavailable at the time of trial, and (2) appellate counsel was ineffective in the direct appeal by failing to raise a claim of after-discovered exculpatory evidence in addition to the ineffective assistance claim he had raised. An affidavit from fire expert John J. Lentini explaining developments in fire science since the time of Lee's trial was attached to the amended petition. The Court of Common Pleas held oral argument and ultimately denied the petition for PCRA relief. In affirming the denial of Lee's PCRA petition, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania concluded that the Lentini affidavit would be used solely to impeach the Commonwealth's experts' credibility and to contradict their opinion that the fire was of incendiary origin. App. at 67. The court also reject[ed] Lee's assertion that the Commonwealth's methodology [for arson investigation] was scientifically invalid because Lentini's affidavit merely challeng[ed] the varying degrees of significance that are attributed to the generally accepted components of arson investigation. App. at 72-73. Under Pennsylvania law, [a] new trial may be granted on the theory of after discovered evidence only if the new evidence ... [, inter alia, ] will not be used solely for impeaching the credibility of a witness. App. at 66. This was the reason given by the Superior Court to deny relief on this claim. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania then denied Lee's application for reconsideration or re-argument en banc, and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied Lee's application for allowance of appeal.