Com. v. Felder, H. No. 2994 EDA 2019
The case of Commonwealth v. Felder is a unique case as both the defendant and the Commonwealth agree that there is newly discovered evidence which is grounds for a new trial. However, the Superior Court found that because the trial court acted within its discretion when it denied the new-trial request, the Superior Court affirms the judgment of the trial court.
The defendant was convicted at trial of a number of firearms related charges. Following his conviction, it came to light that the officer who testified had been found incredible in two previous cases. This information was not disclosed to the defense. At the time, the District Attorney who was trying the case was unaware. He promptly turned over the information as soon as he became aware. The defendant filed a request for a new trial and The Commonwealth joined in that request.
A criminal defendant seeking to assail a guilty verdict and retry a case with after-discovered evidence must clear four hurdles. He must convince the trial court that the evidence
1) could not have been obtained prior to the conclusion of the trial by the exercise of reasonable diligence,
2) is not merely corroborative or cumulative,
3) will not be used solely to impeach the credibility of a witness; and
4) would likely result in a different verdict if a new trial were granted.
The test is conjunctive meaning that the defendant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that each of these factors has been met in order for a new trial to be warranted.
In analysis of this case, the superior court notes that both the defendant and the Commonwealth improperly attempt to litigate the after-discovered-evidence issue on appeal de-novo. The Superior Court however, cannot simply substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. The Superior Court has no authority to second guess a ruling committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. After-discovered evidence is “peculiarly” a question in the trial courts discretion because that court is uniquely positioned and qualified to appraise the reliability of the original trial and the proposed evidence’s impact upon it. The scope of review is again an abuse of discretion standard. The court cannot review errors of a party even when as here, the government confesses constitutional violations. The court can only review whether the court abused its discretion in denying a motion for a new trial. In this case, evaluation of the third prong is dispositive of the matter. The trial court found that the after discovered evidence would only be used to impeach the credibility of the officer. Counsel for the defendant admitted as much. Because the motion does not satisfy the third prong, the trial court made a sound and well-reasoned judgment and did not abuse his discretion. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Our Clients are entitled to a Bill of Rights which states:
- Our clients have the right to expect, we will be proactive in communication. You will hear it from us first. We will return all phone calls, texts and emails promptly.
- Our clients have the right to expect plain speaking, straight shooting. No B. S.
- Our clients have the right to expect us to do it right the first time, every time.
- Our clients have the right to expect us to be on time and professionally prepared for all court appearances, and all meetings.
- Our clients have the right to expect that they will be fully informed at all times.
This is our promise to you. Call today to get us on your side: (717) 657-3900.
