Pennsylvania's Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act (PCRA) allows prior convic-tions to be re-examined under claims of newly discovered evidence, constitutional violations, or ineffective assistance of counsel.

It is rare for a new trial to be granted through the PCRA process, possibly because few convicted defendants can afford the cost of a full-scale re-investigation. Whereas just staying in contact with the outside world is difficult enough, conducting witness interviews, consulting with experts, and re-examining evidence is virtually impossible from a prison cell. Additionally, post-trial appeals often deal more with complex interpretations and case precedents of the judicial process, rather than the specific crime scene events.

Most of MOVE's legal materials from the August 8, 1978 case (and much of Mumia Abu-Jamal's legal documentation) were destroyed in the fire May 13, 1985. In light of these constraints, the nine August 8th defendants were not able to file for PCRA appeals until the early 1990's when they enlisted the assistance of an attorney. As of May 2005, all MOVE's appeals have been denied, including the Federal Habeas Corpus appeal in the U.S. District Court. The MOVE 9 is currently appealing to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

In June of 1995, after years of extensive research, a team of lawyers led by Leonard Weinglass filed a PCRA appeal for Mumia Abu-Jamal, which documented gross misconduct and constitutional violations in what was anything but a fair trial by a jury of one's peers. Researchers discovered that Mumia had been watched and targeted by the FBI since he was 14 years old, and that Judge Sabo had sentenced more people to death than any other sitting judge in the country. Claiming that he could be fair to both sides, Sabo denied a motion to be recused and presided over the PCRA evidentiary hearing. Abandoning even the pretense of impartiality, Sabo attacked defense counsel, jailing one for attempting to enter into evidence a defense exhibit, and finding another $1,000 for failing to move fast enough. Before the hearings were ended, even the major media editorials were acknowledging that Sabo's injudicious and openly biased conduct made the proceedings a farce. In the fall of 1995, the case went to the State Supreme Court after Sabo refused to grant Mumia a new trial.