Calvin B. Lynch v. Mark Garman, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Rockview, et al.
1. Is PETITIDNER ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF THE
PENNSYLVANIA SUPREM COURTS CLARIFYING
INTERPRETATION OF THE WITNESS INTIMIDATION
STATUTE, PA.C.S.A.S4952, WHICH PETITIONER
WAS CONVICTED?
2. CAN PETITIDNER, CONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL DUE
PRDCESS, CONTINUESLY BE CONVICTED AND
INCARCERATED ACCORDING TO THE CLARiFYING
INTEPRETATION OF THE WITNESS INTIMIDATION
STATUTE,WHERE, PETITIONER IS GLEGED TO HAVE
ONLY MADE A PECUNIARY OFFER OR POSSIBLY
OTHER BENEFITS TO THE WITNESS TO NOT
COME TO COURT?
3. Because Petitioners first oflurtunity to cause this
Particular claim was in the U.S. DistrictCourt(3dar.).
should the district coust have cemanded back to the
State Court for a determination on whether or nst Petitioners
conduct satisfies the elements of witness intimidation.
18 Pa.C.S.A.s4A52, as ProlerY interPreted bY THis States
HiGhest Court?
Is petitioner entitled to the Pennsylvania courts' clarifying interpretation of the witness intimidation statute, Pa.C.S.A.§4952, under which petitioner was convicted?