SUPERIOR COURT REVERSES LOWER COURT’S DISMISSAL OF PCRA PETITION
Attorney Noel secured another important victory before the Pennsylvania Superior Court in a complex post-conviction case involving advanced forensic DNA evidence and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.The client was serving a lengthy state prison sentence following convictions for serious offenses, where the prosecution’s case relied heavily on TrueAllele, a proprietary probabilistic genotyping software. Trial counsel did not seek access to the software’s source code or supporting materials, nor did counsel meaningfully challenge the reliability of the DNA analysis through expert testimony.
After conviction, Attorney Noel filed a Post-Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) petition arguing that trial counsel’s failures deprived the client of a fundamentally fair trial. In particular, Attorney Noel raised claims implicating due process and confrontation rights, asserting that:
the defense was effectively unable to confront and test the evidence presented against the client,
access to the TrueAllele source code and underlying data was necessary to verify the accuracy and reliability of the DNA analysis, and
counsel’s omissions in pursuing these challenges constituted arguable merit sufficient to require an evidentiary hearing.
The PCRA court dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing. Undeterred by the PCRA court’s ruling, Attorney Noel argued on appeal that the PCRA court erred by rejecting the client’s factually and legally sophisticated claims without allowing the development of an evidentiary record. The claims involved both:
scientific and technical issues, including the reliability of proprietary DNA software, and
constitutional issues, including due process and the right to confront evidence against the defendant.
The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing, holding that the claims had arguable merit and raised genuine issues of fact and law that could not be resolved without testimony and further evidence. The Court recognized that challenges involving:
the reliability of complex DNA software,
counsel’s strategic decisions regarding forensic evidence, and
access to proprietary scientific tools
touch directly on constitutional protections and must be carefully examined.
This decision underscores the critical importance of appellate advocacy in cases involving novel forensic technology and constitutional rights. It demonstrates that:
post-conviction claims implicating due process and confrontation rights can have substantial arguable merit,
courts cannot summarily dismiss fact-intensive claims involving scientific evidence, and
careful appellate work can secure meaningful procedural relief, even after an unfavorable trial-level ruling.
Attorney Noel’s work in this case highlights her ability to handle high-stakes appeals, PCRA litigation, and scientifically complex records, ensuring that constitutional rights are protected and that forensic evidence withstands rigorous scrutiny.
