Court Opinion

ID: 2760017
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-12-12 01:05:56.660536+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:11:25.990289
License: Public Domain

ORDER
  

  PER CURIAM.
 

  AND NOW, this 11th day of December, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:
 

  (1) Does the
  
   en banc
  
  Superior Court’s published decision contravene the plain language of the PCRA and precedent by deeming defendant duly diligent in pursuing his claim despite his failure to speak with the recanting witness for fourteen years?
 

  (2) Does the
  
   en banc
  
  Superior Court’s published decision contravene precedent by failing to properly consider factors that greatly undermined the reliability of the recantation evidence, and rendered erroneous the determination that it likely would have changed the verdict?
 

  (3) Does the
  
   en banc
  
  Superior Court’s published decision contravene precedent by approving an ostensible credi
   
   *319
   
  bility finding against a key witness whose testimony the PCRA court suppressed?
 

  (4) Does the
  
   en banc
  
  Superior Court’s published decision contravene the governing standard by rejecting the Commonwealth’s recusal argument where the PCRA judge’s repeated conduct in
  
   sua sponte
  
  raising claims on defendant’s behalf created an objective appearance of impropriety?