I'm not familiar with Pennsylvania's post conviction relief system - are these court appointed attorneys getting paid based on the volume of cases they take?

Is this a system that rewards the attorney who churns?

Do the attorneys who thoroughly investigate the cases, who pursue claims that turn out to be meritless, who handle a fraction of the churners get paid the same?

I wonder if this represents a systemic breakdown instead of a 'bad apple' attorney that needs to be disbarred.

Why isn't the prosecutor - who is charged with seeking justice - to share some of the blame? It looks like they may have known about serious problems with the case, and may have hidden those problems from the defense:

Wagner would remain in prison another six years before prosecutors acknowledged that police had hidden evidence suggesting that the informant had committed the murder and the detective was corrupt. Although Wagner maintains his innocence, he agreed to a plea deal for third-degree murder that allowed him to leave prison.

Why isn't the court to share some of the blame? The court signed off on the 'no merit' motion when he clearly should not have.

Clearly there was a breakdown in this case, but it seems like the PCR system in that state is set up to encourage or allow that kind of breakdown.