Did the third circuit court err in deferring to the Court of Common Pleas finding that Mr. Jackson was not prejudiced by trial counsel not having key pieces of evidence tested for DNA?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Mr. Jackson alleges his trial counsel was ineffective. His trial counsel failed to have key pieces of evidence collected at the crime scene tested for and against his DNA. Trial counsel failed to meet with Mr. Jackson prior to trial timely to discuss any strategy. The strategy would have included how to question the Commonwealths eye witness, DNA testing of the evidence and other possible witnesses including video footage that could help with Mr. Jackson’s alibi. By not meeting with Mr. Jackson prior to trial timely on a 1‘' degree murder case, the trial counsel showed a definite preview of being ineffective. This also lessened the chances of Mr. Jackson presenting reasonable doubt as well as proof that he was not at the scene and another individual or individuals were ; involved in the murder of the decedent. Trial counsel should have requested the body and clothing of the decedent to be tested for GSR. Again, had trial counsel met with Mr. Jackson prior to the trial timely, these items could have been discussed and a proper decision could have been made. The conviction was made by a very large part of the Commonwealths witness who claimed to be an eye witness’ testimony. This witness showed inconsistencies in his statements to the police as well as his testimony’s. Had his testimony been impeached, the probability of Mr. Jackson being convicted would have been much smaller. This same witness could have been the actual doer. He was never investigated. Mr. Jackson was prejudiced by these actions and lacks thereof. Trial counsel stated she did not have a hat that was collected as evidence tested as it may have implicated the Defendant as the doer. It should also be noted the Commonwealth did not test the hat for or against Mr. Jackson’s DNA. I would believe that the Commonwealth would have tested it to make their case stronger. By not doing so, it should have been thought maybe the Commonwealth knew Mr. Jackson could i be exonerated of the crime. Mr. Jackson maintained his innocence from the very beginning. He also knew better than anyone if the hat was in any way associated with him. Trial counsel should have consulted with Mr. Jackson prior to trial and at the very least had the hat tested. In finding no prejudice or merit, the Third Circuit relied mostly on the Court of Common Pleas Court’s Statement of Facts and Direct Appeal, but significantly misstated even the slanted version of the facts. The case thus presents the following questions: 1. Did the third circuit court err in deferring to the Court of Common Pleas finding that Mr. Jackson was not prejudiced by trial counsel not having key pieces of evidence tested for : DNA? SUGGESTIVE ANSWER: YES 2. Did trial counsel err by not having key pieces of evidence tested for and against DNA of Mr. Jackson and any other person? SUGGESTIVE ANSWER: YES 3. Did trial counsel err by not having the body and clothing of the decedent tested for GSR? SUGGESTIVE ANSWER: YES 4. Did trial counsel err by not impeaching the witness for the Commonwealth’s testimony? SUGGESTIVE ANSWER: YES 5. Did trial counsel err by not meeting with Mr. Jackson prior to trial timely to discuss strategy and go over discovery? SUGGESTIVE ANSWER: YES 6. Did trial counsel err by not having the police investigate the Commonwealth’s witness as a possible suspect? SUGGESTIVE ANSWER: YES ii