Menu
Wimmer Criminal Defense, PC has secured a new trial for Aleem Williams following years of post-conviction litigation challenging his Philadelphia murder conviction.
Williams was only 17 years old when he was arrested in 2004 for the murder of 15-year-old Malik Upchurch in South Philadelphia. He was convicted of first-degree murder in 2005 and sentenced to life imprisonment. More than two decades later, following extensive investigation, multiple evidentiary hearings, and litigation under Pennsylvania's Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"), Philadelphia criminal defense attorney Lauren A. Wimmer successfully obtained a new trial for Williams. The result illustrates why a conviction—even one that is decades old—does not necessarily mark the end of a criminal case.
Williams was arrested at age 17 in connection with the July 1, 2004 shooting death of 15-year-old Malik Upchurch near 28th and Wharton Streets in South Philadelphia. Contemporaneous news coverage reported that Williams and co-defendant Jermaine King were later convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The case against Williams depended heavily upon eyewitness identification testimony, including testimony from children who were present at the time of the shooting. Years later, substantial questions emerged concerning that evidence. In 2018, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported on Williams's continuing claim of innocence and the existence of new eyewitness evidence that he contended supported that claim. At the time, Williams had already spent years waiting for the courts to address his newly discovered evidence claims. That evidence eventually became part of extensive PCRA litigation challenging his conviction.
Two witnesses who were children at the time of the 2004 shooting ultimately recanted the identification evidence implicating Williams. One was only eight years old at the time of the shooting. The other was eleven. Their testimony was particularly significant because eyewitness identification evidence had played a central role in the prosecution of Williams. During the PCRA proceedings, the defense presented evidence challenging how those identifications were obtained and whether they accurately reflected what the children actually witnessed.
The litigation also included testimony from a new witness who provided additional evidence concerning the shooting and Williams's alleged involvement. These were not issues that could be resolved simply by filing a written petition. The case required years of investigation, witness preparation, legal briefing, and multiple evidentiary proceedings before the PCRA court.
After years of post-conviction litigation, the court granted Williams a new trial. For someone convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, obtaining a new trial through the PCRA is an extraordinary and consequential form of relief. A PCRA court does not simply reconsider whether it agrees with the original jury. Pennsylvania post-conviction litigation is governed by strict substantive and procedural requirements. A petitioner must establish a legally recognized basis for relief and, where a petition is filed outside the ordinary PCRA deadline, must also establish that the court has jurisdiction to consider the claims.
Williams's case required the defense to investigate evidence arising long after the original prosecution, litigate the significance and credibility of witness testimony, develop the evidentiary record, and demonstrate why the conviction could no longer stand. The ultimate result: a new trial.
The Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act, commonly called the PCRA, provides a mechanism for individuals convicted of crimes in Pennsylvania to challenge their convictions or sentences under certain circumstances.
Depending on the facts of the case, PCRA claims can involve issues such as:
PCRA litigation is highly technical. Pennsylvania imposes a strict jurisdictional time limit on PCRA petitions, with limited statutory exceptions. Determining whether an exception applies—and properly pleading and proving it—can determine whether a court ever reaches the merits of a potentially powerful claim. Learn more about Pennsylvania PCRA petitions and post-conviction relief and PCRA claims involving after-discovered evidence from Wimmer Criminal Defense.
A witness coming forward years after a conviction does not automatically result in a new trial. Courts examine the circumstances surrounding the new evidence, its credibility, when and how it was discovered, whether it could have been obtained earlier through reasonable diligence, and whether it meets the substantive requirements for post-conviction relief. That makes investigation critical.
In a serious PCRA case—particularly one involving a murder conviction—the work often goes far beyond reviewing the original trial transcript. Counsel may need to locate witnesses from a case that is decades old, obtain historical records, reconstruct the original investigation, compare prior statements with later testimony, litigate discovery issues, and conduct evidentiary hearings. The Williams litigation demonstrates just how important that work can become.
Attorney Lauren A. Wimmer represents individuals seeking post-conviction relief in Philadelphia and throughout Pennsylvania.
As a Philadelphia criminal defense lawyer who previously served as a judicial law clerk in the Homicide Division of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Wimmer handles serious criminal matters at both the trial and post-conviction stages.
Her practice includes representation involving:
The Williams case is an important reminder that post-conviction representation requires more than identifying a possible legal issue. It requires developing the evidence necessary to prove it. For Williams, that process took years. And it resulted in a new trial.
A criminal conviction can carry consequences lasting decades, but Pennsylvania law provides avenues for challenging convictions when the legal requirements for post-conviction relief are satisfied. Because PCRA petitions are subject to complicated and often unforgiving deadlines, anyone considering a post-conviction challenge should consult an attorney as early as possible.
Wimmer Criminal Defense, PC represents clients in Philadelphia and throughout Pennsylvania in PCRA petitions, criminal appeals, homicide cases, serious felony cases, and other post-conviction matters. If you or a family member believes a conviction resulted from ineffective assistance of counsel, newly discovered evidence, witness recantation, constitutional violations, or other circumstances that may support post-conviction relief, contact Philadelphia PCRA attorney Lauren A. Wimmer to discuss the case.
© 2026 Wimmer Criminal Defense, PC|Legal Disclaimer|Privacy Policy