Newly discovered evidence and the PCRA time-bar exceptions
A recanting witness, a discredited detective, a co-defendant's confession, a file the defense never saw. New evidence can reopen a case years after the deadline, but Pennsylvania law separates two questions that families often run together: does the evidence get you past the time bar, and does it entitle you to a new trial?
By John A. Julian, Esq. Updated October 1, 2026.
Two different questions
The first question is jurisdictional. A petition filed more than a year after the judgment became final must fit one of the exceptions in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1). The "newly discovered facts" exception in § 9545(b)(1)(ii) requires that the facts on which the claim is based were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained earlier by the exercise of due diligence. The petition must be filed within one year of the date the facts could first have been discovered.
The second question is substantive. Once the court has jurisdiction, the petitioner must prove an "after-discovered evidence" claim under § 9543(a)(2)(vi): that exculpatory evidence has become available that was unavailable at trial and would have changed the outcome.
The exception opens the door. The claim has to win the case. Courts regularly find that a petitioner satisfied the exception but the evidence did not meet the substantive test, or the reverse.
The due diligence requirement
Due diligence does not require perfect vigilance, but it requires reasonable effort. If the fact was in a public record, a court filing, or a news story that a reasonably diligent person would have found, the exception fails. If the fact was in the prosecution's file, hidden, or known only to a witness who refused to speak until now, the exception is available. The petition must explain when the fact was learned, how, and why it could not have been learned sooner. A bare statement that the petitioner "recently learned" something is not enough.
The one-year clock under § 9545(b)(2) runs from when the fact could have been discovered, not from when the petitioner felt ready to file. An affidavit obtained in March starts a clock that expires the following March, whether or not counsel has been retained. When a family learns of new evidence, the date they learned it should be documented that day.
The four-part after-discovered evidence test
To obtain a new trial on the merits, the evidence must satisfy all four parts of the test set out in cases such as Commonwealth v. Pagan, 597 Pa. 69, 950 A.2d 270 (2008):
- It could not have been obtained before or during trial through reasonable diligence.
- It is not merely corroborative or cumulative of evidence already presented.
- It will not be used solely to impeach the credibility of a witness.
- It would likely result in a different verdict if a new trial were granted.
The third and fourth parts do most of the work. Evidence that only shows a witness was lying, without independently pointing to innocence, is often characterized as impeachment and rejected. And the court asks whether a jury hearing the new evidence alongside everything else would likely reach a different result, which depends on how strong the rest of the Commonwealth's case was.
Recantations
Recantation evidence is treated with particular skepticism. The PCRA court must assess whether the recantation is credible, and it is entitled to disbelieve it. A recantation is strongest when it is corroborated by something else: physical evidence, another witness, records showing the original testimony was impossible. A recantation that explains why the witness lied originally, and why the witness is telling the truth now at some personal cost, is far more persuasive than one that simply says the opposite of the trial testimony.
Discredited police officers and Brady material
(See the separate guide to Brady v. Maryland.) In Philadelphia, disclosures about officers with histories of misconduct have produced a distinct line of petitions. When the officer was central to the case, and the misconduct information was in the Commonwealth's possession at trial but not disclosed, the claim can proceed under the governmental interference exception as well as the newly discovered facts exception, and on the merits as a Brady violation. The analysis turns on when the information became publicly available, which sets the one-year clock, and on how much the case depended on that officer.
Evidence to gather before contacting a lawyer
The date and manner in which the new fact was learned. Any document, message, or recording that shows the fact. Contact information for anyone who can confirm it. The trial transcript, if available, so that the new evidence can be measured against what the jury heard. Do not contact the witness yourself to obtain a statement; how a statement is obtained affects how a court will weigh it.
Not sure how this applies to your case? The first thing we do in a case review is pull the docket and calculate the deadline. Request a case review or call (215) 568-0607.
Common questions
How long do I have to file after discovering new evidence?
One year from the date the fact could first have been discovered with due diligence, under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(2). Claims arising before December 24, 2017 were subject to a 60-day window.
Is a witness recanting enough for a new trial?
Not by itself. The court must find the recantation credible, and the evidence must meet the four-part after-discovered evidence test, including that it would likely change the verdict.
What is the difference between the exception and the claim?
The newly-discovered-facts exception gets a late petition past the time bar. The after-discovered-evidence claim is what wins a new trial. Both must be proven.