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
NEWMAN, Justice,
concurring.
I join the Majority, and write separately only to address footnote 8 of the Opinion. I reiterate the position I expressed in Commonwealth v. Chandler, 554 Pa. 401 , 721 A.2d 1040 (1998), regarding the “life means life” issue. As I stated in Chandler :
[I]n cases where Simmons would require a “life means life” instruction, I agree with Chief Justice Flaherty that the court should instruct the jury that the defendant’s sentence could be commuted. Where future dangerousness is at *160 issue, the impossibility of parole and the possibility of commutation are equally relevant, so the court should inform the jury of both contingencies.
In this case, I agree with the majority that future dangerousness was not at issue. Accordingly, I agree that the trial court properly declined to give a “life means life” instruction.