Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog
What is a preliminary hearing, and what happens afterwards?
The preliminary hearing is a critical first step in fighting the charges against you. We have had countless cases and charges thrown out at the preliminary hearing.
What to Expect at Your Preliminary Hearing in Pennsylvania
The Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers of Goldstein Mehta LLC represent clients who are facing all types of criminal charges in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Our defense attorneys have a proven track record of successfully defending our clients in thousands of criminal cases in countless jurisdictions. In Pennsylvania state court cases, our efforts on behalf of our clients often begin with the preliminary hearing.
This critical step in the process occurs after preliminary arraignment, and it is the first substantive hearing in a criminal case. We have successfully represented clients in thousands of these important hearings. In many cases, we have been able to have some or all of the charges dismissed at this initial stage in the proceedings. Even in matters where the case proceeds to the Court of Common Pleas, we are often able to use our cross examination skills to obtain testimony which will be useful in defending the case at later proceedings such as a motion to suppress or trial. This article explains both what happens at a preliminary hearing and what will happen if a case is "held for court" following testimony and argument.
If you are facing criminal charges, call 267-225-2545 to speak with one of our experienced and understanding Philadelphia, Pennsylvania criminal defense attorneys. We offer a free, 15-minute criminal defense strategy session.
What is a preliminary hearing?
The preliminary hearing is an extremely important step in the criminal justice process, and our criminal lawyers have successfully moved for dismissal of some or all of the charges in countless cases. In most cases, the “prelim” is the first opportunity for our criminal defense lawyers to challenge the evidence and charges against you. Although the hearing is a critical step in the process, it can also be frustrating and confusing for the defendant because the hearing differs significantly from the actual trial.
The proceedings sort of look like a trial, but they are different from the trial, and there are a number of important distinctions. A judge, prosecutor, defense attorney, court reporter, and court clerk are all likely to be there, making it look like a trial. However, despite the appearance of a criminal trial, it is not the same thing. Instead, the hearing (sometimes called a probable cause hearing) is a relatively brief court appearance in which a Philadelphia Municipal Court judge or suburban Magisterial District Justice, depending on the venue of the case, will usually hear from one or two of the main Commonwealth witnesses in order to determine whether the prosecution can successfully introduce enough evidence to show that the case should proceed to trial at the next level.
Just recently, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court re-affirmed the proposition that the Commonwealth generally must put on some live testimony and typically may not proceed on hearsay alone. The exact limitations on the admissibility of hearsay at a preliminary hearing are still subject to ongoing litigation, but it is clear that the Commonwealth must put on at least some real evidence in order to get a case to the Court of Common Pleas. More recently, in the case of Commonwealth v. Harris, the state Supreme Court affirmed a decision of the Superior Court holding that the Commonwealth must present competent evidence relating to the identification of the defendant at a preliminary hearing, as well. This is particularly true for preliminary hearings in Philadelphia. Even in the counties where prosecutors are more often allowed to use hearsay, the hearing still provides the defense with the opportunity to cross examine the lead detective or police officer in the case. Therefore, it is a critical step in the process because it provides the first chance for our defense attorneys to challenge the charges and evidence against you. The rules also require at least some witnesses to come to court and testify under oath.
The Burden of Proof at a Preliminary Hearing
The prosecutor or affiant (main police officer or assigned detective) must present enough evidence to prove a prima facie case for each charge. This standard requires the Assistant District Attorney to prove 1) that it is more likely than not that a crime was committed and 2) that the defendant committed it. The prosecutor will try to do this by calling witnesses and presenting evidence in much the same manner as the prosecutor would at trial. The defense lawyer then has the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. If the prosecution does not introduce enough evidence to prove a prima facie case for any given charge, then the defense may move for dismissal of that charge, and that charge should be dismissed by the judge. It is important to remember that the prima facie case standard does not require the Commonwealth to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, you should not assume that just because a case was held for court that you will be convicted at trial. There is a significant difference between a judge believing that the Commonwealth has established a prima facie case and a jury concluding that a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Is hearsay admissible at a preliminary hearing?
Although there is a right to cross examine prosecution witnesses and present defense witnesses at a prelim, the rules are very different. For example, the rules of evidence do not apply with the same force as they would at trial. The evidence rules are much more loosely enforced, and it is clear under Pennsylvania law that at least some hearsay is permitted at the hearing pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 542(E).
That rule provides:
Hearsay as provided by law shall be considered by the issuing authority in determining whether a prima facie case has been established. Hearsay evidence shall be sufficient to establish any element of an offense, including, but not limited to, those requiring proof of the ownership of, non-permitted use of, damage to, or value of property.
Although Rule 542 allows the Commonwealth to rely on some hearsay at a preliminary hearing, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that the Commonwealth may not prove the charges against a criminal defendant solely through the use of hearsay without violating a defendant's right to due process under the Pennsylvania Constitution. In recent years, the Superior Court, which is Pennsylvania’s intermediate appellate court, authored a number of opinions in cases such as Commonwealth v. Ricker and Commonwealth v. McClelland in which it allowed the Commonwealth to rely more heavily on hearsay than was previously allowed under Supreme Court precedent.
Those decisions, however, have been overruled as of July 21, 2020 by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. In McClelland, the Supreme Court re-established the previously long-standing rule that a defendant may not be held for court based on hearsay alone. The Supreme Court overruled both prior decisions of the Superior Court and found that a defendant has a due process right to a preliminary hearing which does not consist entirely of hearsay. This means that defendants now have increased protections at the preliminary hearing and an earlier opportunity to make a meaningful challenge to the case against them. The Supreme Court’s ruling is extremely important because of the reality that in serious cases or in cases where a defendant is on probation or parole, it is possible for that person to be held in custody for months or even years while awaiting trial. A meaningful preliminary hearing at which the Commonwealth is required to present actual witnesses is an important check on the ability of the government to detain people for extended periods of time without evidence.
The rules do, however, continue to allow some hearsay at the hearing. Generally, the amount of hearsay that the judge will permit the Commonwealth to introduce really depends on the judge. In some counties, many of the magistrates will let the Commonwealth proceed entirely or almost entirely on hearsay by allowing the assigned detective to testify to what the other witnesses told him or her. In Philadelphia, the judges typically require the prosecution to introduce live witness testimony from the complaining witness or actual eyewitnesses to the alleged crime. This split between the procedures in the counties and in Philadelphia will likely narrow due to the recent Supreme Court decisions in McClelland and Harris, but some differences will probably still remain.
Even in Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure clearly permit the prosecution to introduce ownership and non-permission testimony through the use of an "ONP Form" or through testimony from one of the investigating officers. For example, if the defendant is pulled over in a stolen car, the Commonwealth may proceed at the ensuing Receiving Stolen Property preliminary hearing by calling only the arresting officers to testify. The Commonwealth is not required to produce the owner of the car to testify that that person owned the car and did not give the defendant permission to drive it. This is a relatively limited exception to the rule against hearsay. At trial, the Commonwealth must still call the owner of the car to testify that the car was stolen.
Additionally, because of the relatively brief nature of the hearing and its limited scope, cross examination is much more limited than it would be at trial. For example, when it becomes clear that the defense is really seeking to establish the grounds for a motion to suppress, the judge will likely rein in the questioning because the motion to suppress cannot be litigated until later. Whether the police illegally stopped and searched the defendant is sometimes not relevant to whether the defendant committed a crime. Instead, that issue must typically be litigated at the motion to suppress hearing. However, in many cases, it is possible to ask some questions of the officers about the reasons for the stop which could be helpful for the motion if the case makes it to the Court of Common Pleas. The extent to which the judge will allow defense counsel to explore the reasons for the search or the stop varies from judge to judge.
Finally, the defense may not argue that the case should be dismissed because witnesses are lying unless the testimony is truly beyond belief. Credibility is not an issue at a preliminary hearing. Instead, the judge is instructed by law to accept the testimony of Commonwealth witnesses as true because the judge is simply evaluating whether there is enough evidence for the Commonwealth to proceed to trial. The judge is not permitted to make a credibility decision as to whether the witnesses are telling the truth or the Commonwealth will win at trial. Nonetheless, there are many defenses which can still be argued and may result in the dismissal of charges. Finally, in some cases in which a video directly contradicts an eyewitness, the judge may be willing to consider credibility arguments.
Ways to Get a Case Dismissed at the Preliminary Hearing
Criminal Defense Lawyer for Preliminary Hearings
Despite the fact that many of the differences between a preliminary hearing and a trial favor the prosecution, these hearings are still a critical stage in the criminal justice process for the defense. They provide defendants with substantially more rights and the opportunity to challenge the case at an earlier stage in the proceedings than the use of an indicting grand jury. Still, the defense may not argue that a witness is lying, but the defense may argue that the case should be dismissed for legal reasons. For example, a case could be dismissed or charges could be downgraded if the prosecutor fails to establish all of the elements of the statute in question.
In a case involving Possession with the Intent to Deliver charges, it could be possible to argue that the felony charge should be dismissed if the police failed to stop any alleged buyers because the Commonwealth will not be able to prove that the defendant was actually selling drugs. Likewise, in a circumstantial case in which there were no eyewitnesses to the crime, it may be possible to argue that there is simply not enough evidence that the police got the right guy and that the court should dismiss all of the charges. Thus, the prelim is a critical tool to challenge cases in which the prosecution has overcharged the defendant or in which the evidence is circumstantial and weak. This differs from cases in which prosecutors have used an indicting grand jury as the defendant often will not have the opportunity to challenge the charges until much closer to trial.
Finally, the defense has the right to present evidence or witnesses, but it is very uncommon for the defense to do so. It is usually better to wait and see what the evidence looks like before presenting potential defense witnesses. This is because the defense typically will not have access to the discovery until the case reaches the Court of Common Pleas.
Following the testimony, the defense attorney and prosecutor may make argument about whether the charges should be dismissed or whether the defendant should be held for court. It is very common for prosecutors to overcharge defendants, particularly in cases where the defendant has been arrested before. Therefore, we are often able to have some charges or even entire cases dismissed at this initial stage.
Bail Motions at the Preliminary Hearing
If the defendant has not been able to make bail, then our criminal defense attorneys may make a motion for a bail reduction. This motion may be made regardless of whether the case gets continued or the charges get held for court, and judges are often inclined to reduce bail when the Commonwealth requests a continuance. Other cases may also be dismissed at the preliminary level because witnesses fail to appear. In Philadelphia, the Commonwealth typically has three listings to get ready for the hearing. A judge will usually mark the case “must be tried” after a second listing if the Commonwealth was not ready twice in a row. If the Commonwealth is not ready after three listings, most judges will dismiss the case. If the court dismisses the case, then the defendant should be released the same day if there is nothing else holding them in custody. If the defendant has a probation detainer or other pending cases, then the defendant could be held until those matters are resolved. The Commonwealth may, however, re-file the case and proceed even after a case has been dismissed, and in some cases, the Commonwealth may obtain an arrest warrant for their witnesses so that the police can bring the witnesses to court by force. There are limits on the prosecution’s ability to endlessly re-file cases at this lower level, but it is clear that the Commonwealth can re-file at least once and sometimes twice.
How many times can the prosecution re-file charges in Pennsylvania?
Although the Commonwealth may re-file the charges following dismissal, the Commonwealth’s ability to re-file has limits. Pennsylvania appellate courts have held that where the charges are repeatedly dismissed by the magistrate or Municipal Court judge, the successive re-filing of the charges could eventually reach the point of illegal prosecutorial harassment. If the re-filing of the charges reaches the level of prosecutorial harassment, then the prosecutor’s decision could begin to impact the defendant’s right to due process. This type of due process violation can be used to move for the dismissal of the charges with prejudice - meaning the Commonwealth cannot re-file them. The prosecution would then be required to appeal the dismissal of the charges to the Pennsylvania Superior Court (or initially the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia), and the Superior Court would be responsible for determining whether prosecutors actually made out their case or whether the charges should be dismissed forever.
Success at the Preliminary Hearing Level
Although it may not seem like it at the time, some of the most successful hearings for the defense are hearings in which none of the charges are fully dismissed. This is because even if the charges do not get dismissed at the hearing, some of the main witnesses may have testified at the hearing and said things which can be extremely useful later in the process. For example, the police officer may testify to something which can be helpful at a later motion to suppress the physical evidence, or the complainant may say something wildly different from what the complainant said in a statement to detectives. Many of our winning motion to suppress and trial strategies are built through effective cross examination at the preliminary hearing even in cases where the charges are held for court. Further, even a slight change in gradation from an F1 felony to an F2 felony can make an enormous difference as the case proceeds as F1 felonies may carry significant mandatory minimum sentences that no longer exist for F2s. Therefore, the preliminary hearing is an extremely important step in the process.
What happens after the preliminary hearing?
If the judge who hears the case finds that the Commonwealth has met its burden, then the judge will hold the defendant for court. This does not mean that the defendant is taken into custody. It simply means that the Commonwealth has met the relatively low burden that it must meet and that the case may proceed to the Court of Common Pleas.
If you are held for court, the next step in the process is arraignment. In most counties and in Philadelphia, very little happens at arraignment, and most private lawyers will waive arraignment so that you do not have to appear. Formal arraignment is a hearing in which a judge or commissioner will advise the defendant of the charges that have survived the initial proceedings and ask the defendant how he or she pleads.
Assuming the defendant pleads not guilty, the case will then be listed for a pre-trial conference before a judge. In some jurisdictions like Northampton County, the arraignment is used as an informal pre-trial conference at which plea negotiations may occur or discovery may be exchanged. In these jurisdictions, the judge may also accept guilty pleas at the arraignment. But in the majority of counties, the arraignment is typically waived for a client who is free on bail and represented by private counsel. Following arraignment, the case will usually proceed to a pre-trial conference in which plea negotiations will be discussed and discovery exchanged. Once discovery is complete and any plea offers have been rejected, the case will be listed for trial. In Philadelphia, a trial before a judge could take place in roughly three to six months after the preliminary hearing. If the defendant wishes to proceed by way of jury trial, it may be a year or more before the case goes to trial. Homicide and non-fatal shooting cases and crimes involving sexual offenses tend to move more slowly than less serious cases.
Should I waive the preliminary hearing?
If you are charged with a crime, the preliminary hearing is a critical step in the proceedings against you. In Philadelphia, it is very uncommon to waive the hearing, and there is very little benefit in doing so. We will typically waive the hearing only when the defendant has already been approved for some sort of diversionary program such as ARD or treatment court. The Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office currently has a policy of not considering ARD applications until a case reaches the Court of Common Pleas, and so it usually does not make sense to waive it unless ARD is going to be a very close call and the defense wants to be able to argue that the defendant has been fully cooperative and remorseful.
In the suburban counties, it is much more common for the defendant to waive the preliminary hearing as the prosecutors and police officers often make offers to resolve the case or dismiss some of the charges in exchange for a waiver of the hearing. Once the hearing is waived, however, it becomes much more difficult to fight the case because a valuable opportunity to challenge the prosecution's evidence and cross examine witnesses under oath has been lost.
Further, if you waive the hearing in exchange for a reduction in the charges, the prosecution typically reserves the right to re-instate the withdrawn charges without a new hearing if you choose to go to trial instead of pleading guilty. Therefore, whether you should waive the hearing depends on the jurisdiction and the offer made by the government. It usually does not make sense to waive it unless there is some sort of firm offer on the table which the defendant wishes to accept or unless there is a requirement in that county that the hearing be waived in exchange for ARD consideration.
Each case is different, and whether you should waive any of your rights depends on the facts of your case. Generally, a waiver means that the case is headed for some kind of negotiated or open guilty plea or diversionary program. Alternatively, refusing to waive the hearing sends a message to the prosecution that the defendant plans on fighting the case. Both options have pros and cons which depend on the circumstances of the case and the evidence against the defendant. Therefore, whether you should waive your right to a hearing is an extremely important decision that should be made only with the advice of experienced criminal defense counsel.
Can I get my preliminary hearing back if I waived it?
It depends. In some cases in the suburban counties, it is possible to enter into a waiver at the magisterial district justice level but still reserve the right to litigate the issue of whether prosecutors can prove a prima facie case prior to trial. This would be accomplished by agreeing with the Commonwealth to a waiver of the hearing with the right to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Common Pleas Court. That would give the parties time to engage in negotiations, exchange discovery, and discuss the possibilities for resolving the case. If the case cannot be resolved, then the defendant may still file the petition for writ of habeas corpus, and the Common Pleas judge would then hold a habeas corpus hearing in much the same manner as would occur in the magisterial district court at the prelim. Click here to learn more about habeas corpus petitions.
Could I go to jail at the preliminary hearing?
Preliminary Hearing Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire
It is very unlikely that you would go to jail at the preliminary hearing if you have already been released on bail. The court's job is not to find the defendant guilty or not guilty. Instead, the judge's role is to determine whether there is enough evidence for the charges to proceed to the Court of Common Pleas for trial. Even if the Commonwealth presents enough evidence for the case to continue, there would not be a sentencing hearing because the defendant has not been found guilty. The only reason that a defendant would be taken into custody is if the prosecution were to move to have the defendant's bail increased or revoked. In that case, the Municipal Court judge or magistrate would hear arguments on bail and could increase bail or leave bail the same. If the judge increases bail, the defendant could be taken into custody until the new bail amount is paid. The defendant would then be released. It is relatively rare for this to happen, so it is unlikely that you would go to jail at the preliminary hearing even if the prosecution presents sufficient evidence.
Will I get sentenced at the preliminary hearing?
A criminal defendant will not receive a sentence or even a finding of guilt or innocence at the preliminary hearing. Instead, the purpose of the hearing is only to determine whether or not the Commonwealth can prove a prima facie case that the defendant committed the crimes charged such that the case should proceed to the trial level. Because the judge does not find the defendant guilty or not guilty, there is no sentencing proceeding that would follow the hearing. It is possible that the charges could be dismissed and the case could be over, but a defendant would never be found guilty or sentenced following the proceedings.
Does every criminal case in Pennsylvania get a preliminary hearing?
No, there are at least four situations in which you may not receive a preliminary hearing if you are charged with a crime in Pennsylvania.
First, if you are charged with a misdemeanor in Philadelphia Municipal Court, you will not get a preliminary hearing. Instead, the case will go right to trial in front of a Municipal Court Judge. If you lose the trial and wish to appeal, however, you may file for a trial de novo, and the trial transcript will then be treated similarly to a preliminary hearing transcript.
Second, in Philadelphia, the Commonwealth occasionally proceeds by way of indicting grand jury instead of providing a defendant with a preliminary hearing. In cases where the Commonwealth files a motion alleging that it is concerned about witness intimidation, the Commonwealth may proceed by presenting the evidence in secret to a panel of grand jurors. The grand jurors will then vote on whether to indict the defendant.
Third, in cases involving lengthy investigations conducted by investigating grand juries, the Commonwealth may file a motion to bypass the preliminary hearing under certain circumstances and attempt to use the grand jury’s presentment instead of providing the defendant with a preliminary hearing. This motion is often subject to challenge by the defense. The options for challenging the use of an indicting grand jury, however, are limited. A defendant in that situation, however, may still file a motion to quash in Philadelphia.
Finally, defendants in summary citation cases are not entitled to a preliminary hearing. Instead, the case will go right to trial before a magistrate or Municipal Court judge. Like defendants found guilty in Philadelphia Municipal Court cases, a defendant who has been found guilty of a summary has the right to a de novo appeal to the Court of Common Pleas.
Therefore, most defendants who are charged with a crime in Pennsylvania receive a preliminary hearing, but there are some cases which will not involve one.
The Philadelphia Criminal Lawyers of Goldstein Mehta LLC Can Help
Our Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers offer a 15-minute, complimentary criminal defense strategy session. We know that picking up the phone and calling an attorney can be intimidating, so in this video, I explain what you can expect when you call us. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with one of our criminal defense lawyers.
If you have an upcoming preliminary hearing, you need representation from one of our experienced criminal defense lawyers immediately. We have successfully moved for the dismissal of entire cases and some of the most serious charges on countless occasions. We also use this initial hearing to begin building a defense to the charges by getting the witnesses on the record. And in other cases, we have successfully been able to work out the case for a favorable resolution for the defendant. If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation, call 267-225-2545 for a free 15-minute criminal defense strategy session.
Related Articles: Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justices Can't Agree On Admissibility of Hearsay At Preliminary Hearing
SPEAK WITH ONE OF OUR PHILADELPHIA CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS TODAY
Recent Criminal Defense Awards
PA Superior Court: Joint Purchase of Lethal Drugs Does Not Necessarily Eliminate Liability for Drug Delivery Resulting in Death
Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire
The Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Scott, upholding the defendant’s conviction for drug delivery resulting in death and rejecting the defendant’s argument that he could not be prosecuted for DDRD because he and the decedent planned to use the jointly purchased drugs together. Following Scott, the joint purchase of drugs to share may still provide a defense to DDRD charges, but the analysis is heavily fact specific.
The Facts of Scott
The charges in Scott stemmed from the overdose death of the decedent on June 29, 2019. The decedent and a friend arranged to purchase heroin from the friend’s drug dealer, "Ro-Ro." When Ro-Ro was unavailable, the defendant, identified as Ro-Ro's son, facilitated the purchase. The defendant was picked up by the decedent and the friend. He directed them to multiple locations in Harrisburg, and he was eventually able to pick up the drugs with money provided by the decedent. The group then went to a park where the decedent and the friend used the heroin. The heroin was mixed with fentanyl, and the decedent overdosed and died.
The Criminal Trial
At trial, the Commonwealth presented evidence that the defendant physically handled the drug transactions and delivered the fentanyl to the friend, who acted as an agent for the decedent. The defendant’s defense attorney argued that the defendant was merely a joint user and not a dealer, asserting that the trio had a mutual plan to acquire and use drugs together. The defense attorney requested a jury instruction on joint acquisition and use instructing the jury that this would be a defense to the charges. The trial court denied the requested instruction.
The jury convicted Scott of DDRD and possession with the intent to deliver (PWID) but acquitted him of third-degree murder and evidence tampering. The trial court sentenced him to seven to nineteen years of incarceration followed by probation.
The Superior Court Appeal
The defendant appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, and the court affirmed. On appeal, the defendant challenged both the sufficiency of the evidence and the denial of the requested jury instruction.
Sufficiency of Evidence: Scott argued that the evidence did not establish that he "delivered" the drugs to Savage. He claimed the trio were joint users and the drugs were jointly acquired for mutual use, negating the "delivery" element required for DDRD and PWID.
Jury Instruction: Scott argued the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the theory of joint acquisition and use, depriving the jury of a full understanding of his defense.
The Superior Court’s Ruling
Delivery and Sufficiency of Evidence: First, the Superior Court rejected the sufficiency argument. The court applied the statutory definition of "delivery" under Pennsylvania law, which includes the actual or constructive transfer of a controlled substance from one person to another. The court concluded that the defendant’s physical conveyance of the fentanyl to the friend, who was acting as the decedent’s agent, constituted delivery. The evidence established that the decedent provided the funds, and the defendant facilitated the purchase and transfer of the drugs that caused the decedent’s death.
The court also hinted but did not conclusively decide that Pennsylvania law does not necessarily support the theory that joint acquisition and use negate delivery. The record reflected that the decedent had no personal relationship with the defendant and only participated in the transactions because the friend was unable to reach her usual dealer. The decedent’s role was limited to providing transportation and funds, undermining the claim of joint acquisition. She did not actually use drugs with the defendant but instead used him to purchase the drugs. Accordingly, even if joint acquisition and use would provide a defense, the facts did not necessarily support that defense in this particular case.
Jury Instruction: The Superior Court also upheld the trial court's decision with respect to the denial of the proposed jury instruction, finding that the requested instruction was unsupported by Pennsylvania law and the evidence. The trial court’s instructions accurately reflected the statutory and legal standards for "delivery" and DDRD.
Conclusion
Ultimately, this was not the best set of facts for a defendant assert a joint acquisition and use or joint constructive possession defense to a charge of drug delivery resulting in death. Where two friends go buy drugs from someone and use them, with fatal results, it may still be possible to argue that the friend who physically received the drugs from the seller is not on the hook for drug delivery resulting in death even if they physically then handed a portion of the drugs to the eventual decedent. The problem here is that the defendant and decedent were not friends, they did not really buy drugs together, they did not use the drugs at the same time, and they did not have the kind of relationship that showed that this was some kind of joint venture. Instead, the relationship seemed more like a typical buyer-seller relationship in that the decedent employed the defendant to find the drugs for her. The fact that the defendant also used the drugs therefore did not defeat the DDRD charges. This case certainly limits the defense under Pennsylvania law, but the case may be subject to additional appeals, and the defense may still be available for defendants with better facts in terms of the prior relationship between the acquirer and recipient of the drugs.
Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?
Criminal Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire
If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals and dismissals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, Violations of the Uniform Firearms Act, and First-Degree Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court, including the successful direct appeal of a first-degree murder conviction and the exoneration of a client who spent 33 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.
PA Supreme Court: Plain View Doctrine Still Applies to Cars in Pennsylvania
Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Saunders. In Saunders, the Court held addressed the legality of a warrantless seizure of a gun from a car during a routine traffic stop. The decision, issued on November 20, 2024, affirmed the lower courts' rulings, concluding that the seizure complied with constitutional requirements under the plain view doctrine. Prior to this decision, it was a somewhat open question as to whether the plain view doctrine still applied in Pennsylvania or whether the police were required to get a search warrant prior to seizing contraband that was in plain view in an car in the absence of some kind of emergency or exigent circumstance. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has now held that the police may go into the car and seize contraband which is in plain view before they get the warrant.
The Facts of Saunders
On November 18, 2020, police officers stopped Saunders’ car in Philadelphia for several traffic violations, including illegal window tint and failure to use a turn signal. During the stop, Officer Ibbotson observed Saunders making “furtive movements” toward the floor of the car. Looking through the windshield, the officer saw the handle of a gun beneath the driver’s seat. During questioning, Saunders admitted that he did not possess a valid license to carry a firearm. The officers subsequently seized the gun without a warrant, and they determined from the serial number that the gun had been reported stolen. Prosecutors charged Saunders with various firearms offenses under the uniform firearms act.
Saunders moved to suppress the firearm, arguing that the seizure violated his constitutional rights under the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions. He argued that, under the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's earlier decision in Commonwealth v. Alexander, a warrant was required for any vehicle search or seizure unless exigent circumstances were present. He further argued that the police could have secured the car and obtained a search warrant prior to going into the car and retrieving the gun. Thus, the issue on appeal was whether the “plain view exception” to the warrant requirement still applies in Pennsylvania or whether the police must get a warrant before seizing even contraband which is in plain view.
The Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the seizure under the plain view doctrine, which allows warrantless seizures if:
The officer views the object from a lawful vantage point,
The incriminating nature of the object is immediately apparent, and
The officer has a lawful right of access to the object.
The Court reasoned:
Officer Ibbotson had a lawful vantage point during the traffic stop and observed the gun through the windshield. He did not have to go into the car without a warrant in order to see the gun.
The gun’s incriminating nature was immediately apparent because Saunders admitted he lacked a firearm license before the officer retrieved the weapon.
The officer had lawful access to the vehicle due to the unexpected nature of the discovery, consistent with precedent from another case, Commonwealth v. McCree.
Key Takeaways
Plain View Doctrine: The Court reaffirmed that unexpected probable cause during a lawful stop can justify warrantless seizures of objects in plain view.
Privacy Interests: The ruling emphasized the distinction between minor intrusions to seize objects in plain view and full-scale vehicle searches, which require a warrant or exigent circumstances.
Impact of Precedent: The decision clarified that Alexander, which overruled broad warrant exceptions for vehicle searches, did not eliminate the plain view doctrine.
Outcome
Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Attorneys
Saunders was convicted of multiple firearms offenses, including carrying a firearm without a license, and sentenced to three and a half to seven years in prison. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of his motion to suppress, concluding that evidence lawfully seized under the plain view doctrine remains admissible in Pennsylvania.
This decision makes clear that there are exceptions to the Supreme Court’s holding in Commonwealth v. Alexander that the police must get a search warrant before going into the car. If the police see guns, drugs, or other evidence in plain view from outside of the vehicle, they may be able to enter the car to seize it before they get a search warrant. And once in the vehicle, they may be able to legally seize anything else they can now see while retrieving the contraband that was in plain view. Ultimately, it is generally not advisable to leave an illegal gun lying around. However, motions may still be litigated as to whether the police had reasonable suspicion for the stop, whether they extended the stop improperly, whether they asked questions which went beyond the actual mission of the stop, and whether they could actually see the contraband before entering the vehicle. Therefore, in many cases, there may still be challenges to police action even where the police claim that they could see contraband in plain view. For example, even if the gun was in plain view, it would still likely be suppressed had the police pulled the car over without a legitimate reason.
Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?
If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals and dismissals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, Violations of the Uniform Firearms Act, and First-Degree Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court, including the successful direct appeal of a first-degree murder conviction and the exoneration of a client who spent 33 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.
PA Superior Court: Police Violate Miranda by Claiming They Won’t Use Defendant’s Statement in Court During Interrogation
Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire
The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Phillips, reversing the defendant’s conviction for murder and finding that the police violated his Miranda rights by initially giving his Miranda warnings but then telling him that they would not use his confession in court after they gave the Miranda warnings. The entire premise of Miranda is that an individual who is subjected to a custodial interrogation must be warned that they have the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and that anything they say can can be used against them in court. Therefore, the police cannot give those warnings, subsequently undermine them by promising something false to the contrary, and then use the resulting confession in court.
The Facts of Phillips
The defendant was accused of committing a 2019 shooting in North Philadelphia that killed one man and injured another. Surveillance video showed the shooting. The shooter was on a bicycle and wearing a distinctive floral-patterned shirt. The Philadelphia Police received a tip for an Instagram account linked to a specific handle which appeared to implicate the account owner in the shooting. The police connected the defendant to that Instagram account and ultimately charged him with murder and related charges.
The Interrogation
Two Philadelphia homicide detectives interrogated the defendant at the police station while the defendant was in custody on unrelated charges. The detectives provided the defendant with his Miranda warnings. During the interrogation, the defendant admitted to ownership of the Instagram account, confirmed his presence at the crime scene, and claimed that he participated in the shooting as a lookout under the mistaken belief that the incident was only supposed to be a robbery, not a murder. Obviously, these statements did not help the defendant at his trial.
The key issue with respect to the confession arose when the defendant asked: “You all going to use this in court on me?” One detective falsely responded, “Nobody’s using anything in court,” in an apparent effort to assuage the defendant’s concerns. This statement directly contradicted the Miranda warning that anything said “can and will be used against you in a court of law.”
After making this false statement, the detectives continued questioning the defendant, ultimately eliciting inculpatory statements. The defendant later moved to suppress these statement, arguing that the detective’s promise of confidentiality invalidated his waiver of Miranda rights and rendered his statements involuntary.
The Motion to Suppress
The trial court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress. The court concluded that the detective’s statement was meant to address the defendant’s fear of retribution in being perceived as a snitch and did not negate his understanding of the Miranda warning. After a second trial (the first ended in a mistrial due to a COVID-19 outbreak), the defendant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for first-degree murder along with additional consecutive sentences for other offenses.
The defendant appealed to the Superior Court, asserting that:
The trial court erred in admitting his statements to detectives because his Miranda waiver was invalid.
The trial court improperly sentenced him without considering mitigating factors, including his psychological background, due to its refusal to order a presentence investigation report.
The Superior Court’s Ruling
The Superior Court reversed the ruling of the trial court and held that the trial court should have granted the motion to suppress because the police violated the Miranda rule by lying to the defendant and telling him that his statement would not be used in court.
The Superior Court focused on the interrogation’s adherence to Miranda standards. Under the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Miranda v. Arizona, police must inform suspects of their rights, including the right to remain silent and the warning that anything said can be used against them in court whenever the police conduct a custodial interrogation. If they do not do so, then anything said by the defendant generally cannot be used in court, with some exceptions. Additionally, a suspect’s waiver of the Miranda rights must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
The Superior Court evaluated whether the Miranda waiver was voluntary and whether the defendant really understood the rights he was giving up. In other words, the court asked whether the waiver was the product of free choice, without intimidation, coercion, or deception. It also evaluated whether the defendant understoodstood the nature of the rights and the consequences of waiving them.
The Superior Court found that the detective’s statement that “Nobody’s using anything in court” misrepresented the consequences of the defendant’s waiver. A reasonable person in the defendant’s’ position could have interpreted this as a promise that his statements would not be used against him. The Court emphasized that such false promises contradict the Miranda warnings’ purpose: ensuring suspects understand their statements can be used as evidence in court.
Because the detective’s statement undermined the Miranda warnings, the Superior Court concluded that the defendant’s waiver was invalid. Accordingly, the trial court should have suppressed the statement.
The Court also rejected the argument that this error was harmless. Without the defendant’s confession, the remaining evidence against him was largely circumstantial and consisted of:
Internet searches for extended 9mm handgun clips on the day of the shooting.
Cell tower data placing the defendant near the crime scene.
Surveillance footage showing a bicyclist in a floral-patterned shirt—similar to clothing associated with Phillips.
While this evidence could have suggested the defendant’s involvement, it lacked the direct and unequivocal nature of his confession. The confession was critical to the jury’s guilty verdict.
Therefore, the Superior Court vacated the defendant’s judgment of sentence and remanded the case for a new trial without the statement. It will obviously be harder for the Commonwealth to obtain a conviction on remand. Ultimately, the police are free to tell are sorts of lies during an interrogation, but they are not free to tell lies that undermine the Miranda warnings.
Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?
Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Attorneys
If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals and dismissals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, Violations of the Uniform Firearms Act, and First-Degree Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court, including the successful direct appeal of a first-degree murder conviction and the exoneration of a client who spent 33 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.