Commonwealth v. Hardy, W., Aplt

Summary

This concurring-and-dissenting opinion would agree that modern DNA technology can potentially qualify previously untested or previously tested evidence for post-conviction testing, and that the applicant's redundancy theory should be considered. It would reject the view that the amended statute eliminated a separate timeliness requirement and would require further factual development concerning timeliness, motive, and the current state of DNA technology. Justice Mundy, concurring and dissenting, would remand for those proceedings rather than resolve the evidentiary questions on the existing record.