stating that “it is the trial judge who must interpret the answers and demeanor of all potential jurors to evaluate their ability and willingness to render a fair verdict”
How later courts described this case
- stating that “it is the trial judge who must interpret the answers and demeanor of all potential jurors to evaluate their ability and willingness to render a fair verdict”
- any error from prosecutor’s misstatement of evidence was overcome by trial court’s general instruction that arguments of counsel were not evidence and that the jurors were the sole finders of fact
- considering affidavits attached to appellate brief in attempt to prove layered ineffectiveness
- “issues [that] were not raised in [an] original PCRA petition, counsel’s amended petition, or the oral amendments made to [a] petition before the PCRA court . . . . are waived”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NIGRO, Justice,
concurring.
I join in the Majority opinion. With regard to footnote number 8, however, I note that I agree that a standardized Simmons instruction should be given in all capital cases for the reasons more fully explained in my concurring opinion in Commonwealth v. Clark, 551 Pa. 258 , 710 A.2d 31, 43-44 (1998) (Nigro, J., concurring).
Chief Justice FLAHERTY joins in the Concurring Opinion.