Until recently, it appeared that Pennsylvania law governing post-conviction relief petitions (the challenges to a criminal conviction after direct appeal) were in conflict with governing federal law. This was particularly true regarding whether cumulative prejudice (the accumulation of prejudice from each distinct error of trial counsel) could warrant relief.
For years, although federal courts considered the accumulated impact of prior counsel’s errors in deciding whether the defendant suffered prejudice and was thus entitled to a new trial, Pennsylvania insisted otherwise. As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court most recently iterated, “This Court has repeatedly held that ‘no number of failed [ineffectiveness] claims may collectively warrant relief if they fail to do so individually.’”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
