of the detecti id not present evidence of flight or any other evidence to support an inference of his consciousness of guilt, Elliott argues that it was error for the trial court to prevent him from establishing a lack of consciousness of guilt. He concludes that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue on direct appeal this meritorious and preserved claim, and that, had counsel raised the issue on appeal, there is a reasonable probability that this Court would have granted a new trial. The PCRA court denied relief on this claim, finding that the trial court’s instruction was proper, considering the case law rendering references to lie detector tests inadmissible. PCRA Court Opinion, Oct. 13, 2010, at 15 (citing Commonwealth v. Camm, 443 Pa. 253, 277 A.2d 325, 333 (1971) (<HOLDING>)). The PCRA court further emphasized that trial
holding a consequence instruction is not necessary because the consequences of the verdict have no bearing upon the guilt or innocence of the defendant holding that an informants identity does not need to be disclosed unless the defendant demonstrates a reasonable possibility that the anonymous informant could give evidence on the issue of guilt or innocence which might result in the defendants exoneration holding that the rule in pennsylvania is that reference to a lie detector test or the result thereof which raises inferences concerning the guilt or innocence of a defendant is inadmissible holding that the interest must be that created by a claim to the demand in suit or some part thereof  which is the subject of litigation holding that the apprendi rule was not implicated because a juvenile transfer proceeding does not involve sentencing or a determination of guilt or innocence