Court Opinion

ID: 9694016
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 17:18:37.689179+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:54.393559
License: Public Domain

Justice EAKIN,
Concurring.
Assuming there is no waiver, see Majority Op., at 482-83 n. 14, 967 A.2d at 391 n. 14,1 reiterate my position that counsel’s performance regarding mitigating evidence should be critiqued according to the law existing at the time of trial, not according to later-announced standards. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Sattazahn, 597 Pa. 648, 952 A.2d 640, 671 (2008) (Eakin, J., concurring and dissenting); Commonwealth v. Gibson, 597 Pa. 402, 951 A.2d 1110, 1155 (2008) (Eakin, J., concurring and dissenting); Commonwealth v. Gorby, 589 Pa. 364, 909 A.2d 775, 795-96 (2006) (Castille, J., dissenting). “Any other standard would require counsel to predict changes in the law and turn representation into prognostication.” Commonwealth v. Williams, 597 Pa. 109, 950 A.2d 294, 324 (Eakin, J., concurring). In all other respects, I join the majority’s opinion.