pronouncements of five of nine Justices — which forcefully are rejected by four others — may be reluctant to apply those standards more broadly than is absolutely required.”); Id. at 12-13 (Castille, C.J., concurring) (extension of existing federal retroactivity law should only come from U.S. Supreme Court; this Court is “properly reluctant” to go beyond affirmative commands of U.S. Supreme Court where argument is premised solely upon federal law). State courts should proceed cautiously when asked to be the engine of innovation in federal constitutional law, since mistaken predictive judgments can be disruptive of Pennsylvania law and can cause substantial injustice where the predictive judgments are erroneous. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 617 Pa. 527, 53 A.3d 738, 742-43 (2012) (<HOLDING>). See also Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 623 Pa.
holding that the supreme court of pennsylvania is a state entity for purposes of the eleventh amendment holding that we are required to predict the position which the pennsylvania supreme court would take in resolving this dispute  and in the absence of a clear statement by the pennsylvania supreme court to the contrary or other persuasive evidence of a change in pennsylvania law we are bound by the holdings of previous panels of this court recognizing effect of pennsylvania supreme courts erroneous prediction that us supreme court would hold that government was required to bear burden of disproving selfdefense claim holding that even though petition for allowance of appeal was pending before the pennsylvania supreme court decision remained binding precedent as long as the decision had not been overturned by our supreme court holding that trial court was required to give full effect to supreme courts judgment and that by failing to do so the trial court abused its discretion