Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog
Bail Pending Appeal After a Criminal Conviction in Pennsylvania
Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire
Many criminal defendants who go to trial and are convicted or who plead guilty and receive a harsher sentence than expected opt to appeal their convictions and sentences to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. In general, it is usually possible to challenge both the underlying conviction as well as the resulting sentence that the judge imposed. There may be all sorts of reasons to appeal - the judge may have committed an error of law or imposed an excessive sentence, or the evidence may have been insufficient and the jury got it wrong. But criminal appeals in Pennsylvania can take time. Post-sentence motions may be decided quickly, but a full appeal to the Superior Court or beyond can take a year or two. Accordingly, we often receive questions from clients as to whether they may be eligible for bail pending sentencing or bail pending appeal.
Bail Pending Sentencing
The Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure govern bail pending appeal. Specifically, Pa.R.Crim.P. 521 deals with Bail After Finding of Guilt.
In general, the rule provides that before sentencing, a defendant who has been found guilty of an offense which is punishable by a life sentence or the death penalty shall not be released on bail.
In other cases, whether a defendant is entitled to bail pending sentencing depends on the length of the potential sentence. Prior to sentencing, where the maximum possible sentence cannot exceed three years, the defendant should presumptively remain on bail.
Where the maximum possible sentence could exceed three years, a defendant who was on bail pending trial should generally remain on bail pending sentencing unless the judges finds:
(i) that no one or more conditions of bail will reasonably ensure that the defendant will appear and comply with the conditions of the bail bond; or
(ii) that the defendant poses a danger to any other person or to the community or to himself or herself.
If the judge finds that either of these factors exist, the judge may revoke or deny bail. Such a ruling can be appealed to the Superior Court, but bail appeals can take a few months.
Bail Pending Appeal
After sentencing, the rules change, and the defendant’s right to bail pending appeal depends on the length of the actual sentence imposed. For a defendant who has received a county jail sentence (meaning a sentence with a maximum of less than two years), the defendant has the same right to bail pending appeal as before the trial. Again, the judge may revoke bail for the same reasons that would justify revoking bail pending sentence.
For a defendant who received a state prison sentence (meaning a sentence with a maximum longer than two years), there is no longer a right to bail pending appeal. A judge, however, retains the discretion to allow such a defendant to remain on bail pending appeal where the judge thinks it’s appropriate.
For both groups of defendants, the judge can obviously require the defendant to actually file post-sentence motions and/or the actual appeal in order to remain on bail.
Finally, the rules require the judge to state the reasons for the denial or revocation of bail on the record so that the defendant may seek review in the Superior Court by filing a petition for specialized review should the defendant wish to appeal the bail ruling. The petition for specialized review is a separate appeal to the Superior Court which will usually be resolved more quickly than the full appeal.
Changes in Bail Conditions
It is important to note that in either case, a defendant who receives bail pending appeal may not receive the exact same bail. The judge could change the conditions or increase the bail.
Additionally, this rule does not typically apply to defendants who have appealed from a judgment of the Philadelphia Municipal Court. The Municipal Court has its own unique appeal procedures in which the defendant may seek a trial de novo. Filling a notice of appeal for a trial de novo actually vacates the original conviction, so the defendant then remains on the same pre-trial bail that existed prior to trial.
The rules for bail pending sentencing and bail pending appeal depend on the potential sentence and the actual sentence imposed. Short sentences for less serious offenses will typically allow for bail pending appeal, while judges are much less likely to grant bail pending appeal in serious cases or for cases involving lengthy sentences.
Bail Pending PCRA
Finally, the rules are silent on whether a defendant may be entitled to bail while a Post-Conviction Relief Act Petition is pending. In general, most defendants will not receive bail during PCRA litigation. The case law, however, does provide judges the authority to release a defendant on bail pending PCRA litigation when the judge believes the petition has strong merit. This is much less common than bail pending appeal, but it is not out of the question should the petitioner have a particularly strong PCRA issue.
Facing criminal charges or appealing a conviction? We can help.
Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorney 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 in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court. 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.
Attorney Goldstein Wins Release of Wrongfully Convicted Man Who Spent 33 Years in Prison
Last week, I obtained the dismissal of all charges for a client who had been convicted of first-degree murder 33 years ago and sentenced to life without parole.
In 1989, Philadelphia Police arrested Kevin Bowman and charged him and his co-defendant with murder for a shooting incident that left one man dead and another injured. The only evidence against Mr. Bowman was supposedly the statements of the surviving complainant. At the preliminary hearing and at trial, that man denied that Mr. Bowman shot him and that he had ever told the police that Mr. Bowman was involved in the shooting.
Nonetheless, five police detectives, many of whom have already been sued for misconduct by other wrongfully convicted men, took the stand and each testified that the complainant had made five statements to them and identified Mr. Bowman as one of the shooters. The complainant denied making the statements, and four of them were unsigned. The detectives, however, swore to the jury that the complainant was physically unable to sign the statements at the time due to a hand injury.
Under the oft-abused Brady-Lively rule, the court permitted the prosecution to introduce the statements into evidence as substantive evidence of Mr. Bowman’s guilt even though the complainant denied making them. The prosecution then argued that the jury should believe that the complainant made the statements and told the truth at the time of the statements rather than at trial or the preliminary hearing. The prosecution had no other evidence, so the jury was left to guess as to whether the statements were true or the trial testimony was true. Without any corroboration whatsoever, the jury convicted, and Mr. Bowman was sentenced to life without parole. He had been in custody for 33 years. Last week, a Philadelphia judge ordered his release.
After learning from his co-defendant, who was also convicted, that the co-defendant’s lawyers had obtained access to the file and found potentially exculpatory material which was never disclosed to the defense, Mr. Bowman retained me to investigate his case. I also gained access to the District Attorney’s file, and I found medical records for the complainant and interviews with the hospital personnel that showed that the detectives’ story was impossible. On many of the same dates that the detectives claimed the complainant had a hand injury which prevented him from singing the statements, the complainant had actually signed medical treatment consent forms. The records also showed that his injuries would not have prevented him from signing anything, and one nurse even told the detectives that he had been communicating with the providers by writing notes.
Other doctors told the detectives that the complainant would have been under the influence of medication which could have impacted his ability to tell them what happened. The complainant also told a hospital social worker that he thought someone else might have been responsible for the shooting. And shortly before trial, the Commonwealth submitted the one signed statement for handwriting comparison against other known signatures of the complainant, showing that they had even begun to doubt the testimony of their own detectives. Unsurprisingly, the results were inconclusive, suggesting that even the signed statement may have been a forgery. Finally, and perhaps most outrageously, the file contained a statement from another man who had approached police a day or two later and told them that he had been involved in the shooting and might have hurt someone. Police records showed that they transported the man to the hospital, but it is unclear what they did after that. The prosecutor did not provide any of this critical information to the defense.
Despite the prosecutor having material in his file which showed that the complainant could sign the statements, that the complainant was on strong medication, that the complainant thought someone else might have been the shooter, that the signature might not be the complainant’s, and that someone else had confessed to the crime, the Commonwealth proceeded to trial. Each detective took the stand and insisted that the complainant was unable to sign the four unsigned statements because his hand was injured. And a jury quickly convicted Mr. Bowman. The Commonwealth sought the death penalty, but fortunately, the jury sentenced Mr. Bowman to life in prison.
After finding this material, I filed a Post-Conviction Relief Act Petition arguing that Mr. Bowman should receive a new trial because the Commonwealth committed a Brady violation by suppressing exculpatory material that would have led to an acquittal. After two or three years of delays as we navigated the COVID shut downs and waited for the Commonwealth’s response, the Commonwealth did the right thing and agreed to a new trial. It then agreed that the charges against Mr. Bowman should be withdrawn, and Mr. Bowman was finally released last week. I went to meet him at SCI Chester and make sure that he was released the same day.
Mr. Bowman’s story is both unique and far too routine. It’s unique because he is one of the lucky few who received relief in a court system that is far too focused on upholding convictions even in the face of egregious error and misconduct. Mr. Bowman and his co-defendant had excellent defense attorneys at the time, but those attorneys could not overcome the Commonwealth’s complete failure to comply with its constitutional obligations and produce the exculpatory documents. It’s also unique in that he is truly an inspiring individual who had a perfect record at SCI Chester and prior institutions, helped create critical programming for other inmates, taught a class at Swarthmore College, and even after learning he was due to be released, went to work at his job in the prison.
It is too routine because people go to jail every day, sometimes for decades or even life, based on the testimony of a police officer that a witness who fails to even show up for court said something a few years ago. And in most cases, they don’t have the resources to investigate the case thirty years later or the good luck to find blatant evidence that the prosecution committed misconduct. Fortunately, Mr. Bowman’s criminal case is finally over, he is finally home with his family, and I know he is going to do big things.
Facing criminal charges? We can help.
Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire
If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. Our experienced and understanding Philadelphia criminal defense attorneys have successfully defended clients and obtained new trials after conviction in cases involving charges as serious as Aggravated Assault, Rape, Murder, and Fraud. We have also won criminal appeals and post-conviction relief in state and federal court. At the same time, our extensive experience in the Philadelphia criminal justice system and skills in the courtroom often allow us to obtain outcomes like this one even in relatively less serious cases in the Philadelphia Municipal Court. We offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with a defense attorney today.
Pre-trial Release in New Jersey
Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Lawyers
If you are facing criminal charges in New Jersey, we can help. The first step anytime you are facing charges or believe you may be under investigation is to speak with an experienced criminal defense attorney about your options. We regularly defend clients who are charged with a wide variety of offenses in New Jersey, including in counties such as Camden, Somerset, Hunterdon, Ocean, Cape May, and Atlantic County. We offer a free 15-minute criminal defense strategy session to any potential client who is under investigation or who is facing criminal charges. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.
How does bail work in New Jersey?
New Jersey recently implemented a bail system which is very different from the systems in place in most of the rest of the country in that New Jersey no longer relies on cash bail. New Jersey's system closely mirrors the systems in use in Washington, D.C. and the federal courts. However, the system is probably more favorable to defendants in that the majority of criminal defendants are released pending trial.
The first step in the criminal justice system in any state is typically the bail determination. In other words, the first hearing is to determine whether the defendant will be released pending trial or detained. In Pennsylvania, courts still rely on cash bail in determining whether or not a defendant should be released pending trial. This means that a magistrate sets the bail amount at a preliminary arraignment, and if the defendant can pay that bail (usually 10% of the set amount), then the defendant will be released pending trial and will not spend any time in jail unless convicted.
A cash bail system is inherently unfair because it allows wealthier defendants to be released pending trial in even the most serious cases short of homicide while poorer defendants could languish in jail for years until their trial date. Because they are stuck in jail pending trial dates, which often get delayed, those defendants face a tremendous incentive to take a plea deal in order to get out of jail. Although Philadelphia’s new District Attorney has made promises to end cash bail, this has not happened yet.
Changes to New Jersey’s Bail System
New Jersey’s new bail system, although not perfect, resolves many of those problems. In January 2017, New Jersey switched to an entirely new system that almost completely does away with cash bail. According to a recent Philly.com article, only 44 New Jersey defendants were required to pay bail in exchange for release in 2017. Instead, when a defendant is arrested in New Jersey, it is generally presumed for most offenses that the defendant will be released. If the prosecution looks at the offense and the defendant’s background and believes either that the defendant is a risk to the community, likely to try to intimidate witnesses, or unlikely to appear for court, then the prosecution may file a motion for pre-trial detention.
The first court date in New Jersey is typically the first appearance. Most defendants will receive a summons to appear for the first appearance, and it is generally expected that the prosecution will file a motion for pre-trial detention prior to the first appearance. If the prosecution does not file the motion for pre-trial detention, then the defendant will be released pending trial and will remain free unless the circumstances change. A change in circumstances could include the defendant picking up new criminal charges or failing to appear for court. Barring that, the defendant will usually remain free pending trial.
What offenses could result in pre-trial detention in New Jersey?
The prosecution may only file a motion for pre-trial detention in cases involving indictable offenses or in disorderly persons offenses involving domestic violence. If you are charged with a disorderly persons offense that does not involve domestic violence, then you should not ordinarily be detained pending trial.
When will the detention hearing occur?
If the prosecution files a motion for pre-trial detention, then the Superior Court judge assigned to the case or to pre-trial detention hearings must hold a hearing on the motion within three days of the filing of the motion. The prosecution or defense counsel may request a continuance of the hearing, but unless one of the parties shows good cause, the continuance may not exceed five business days if made by the defense. If made by the prosecution, the continuance of the pre-trial detention hearing may not exceed three business days. The court has the authority to detain the defendant until the hearing, which is why the rule limits the length of these continuances absent a showing of good cause.
What happens at a pre-trial detention hearing in New Jersey?
The pre-trial detention hearing looks relatively similar to a bail hearing under the previous law. The defendant has the right to an attorney, meaning he or she may retain an attorney and have that attorney present. If the defendant cannot afford an attorney, then the court must appoint an attorney for the defendant. The defense has the right to present witnesses and evidence and cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses, and the defendant always has the right to be present at the hearing. In order to have a defendant held pending trial, the prosecution must show two things:
First, the prosecution must show that there is probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed the crime charged. If the defendant has not been indicted yet, then the prosecution must present evidence to the court to establish probable cause. This would often involve presenting police reports or testimony from the lead detective in the case to the court. If the defendant has already been indicted by a grand jury, then probable cause exists and the prosecution does not again have to show probable cause.
Second, the prosecution must show that the defendant is a flight risk, likely to obstruct justice, or a danger to the community. The prosecution must make this showing at a clear and convincing evidence standard. For a limited number of offenses, there is a presumption that the defendant is a flight risk and danger to the community. These are offenses like murder, rape, and other offenses which are punishable with a life sentence in prison. For most offenses, however, there is a presumption that the defendant should be released. If there is a presumption that the defendant should be detained due to the nature of the offense charged, then the defendant must present evidence in order to rebut the presumption assuming that the prosecution establishes probable cause. If the presumption is that the defendant should be released, then the prosecutor must present evidence that the defendant should be held pending trial.
New Jersey’s new law created a new office of Statewide Pretrial Services which is charged with creating risk assessment reports for each defendant who is charged with an offense for which they could be detained. The Pretrial Services office will gather information about the defendant and prepare a report for the court along with a recommendation as to whether the defendant should be released. When making its detention decision, the trial court is directed to consider the following factors:
a. The nature and circumstances of the offense charged;
b. The weight of the evidence against the eligible defendant, except that the court may consider the admissibility of any evidence sought to be excluded;
c. The history and characteristics of the eligible defendant, including:
(1)the eligible defendant's character, physical and mental condition, family ties, employment, financial resources, length of residence in the community, community ties, past conduct, history relating to drug or alcohol abuse, criminal history, and record concerning appearance at court proceedings; and
(2)whether, at the time of the current offense or arrest, the eligible defendant was on probation, parole, or on other release pending trial, sentencing, appeal, or completion of sentence for an offense under federal law, or the law of this or any other state;
d. The nature and seriousness of the danger to any other person or the community that would be posed by the eligible defendant's release, if applicable;
e. The nature and seriousness of the risk of obstructing or attempting to obstruct the criminal justice process that would be posed by the eligible defendant's release, if applicable; and
f. The release recommendation of the pretrial services program obtained using a risk assessment instrument under section 11 of P.L.2014, c.31 (C.2A:162-25).
The recommendation of the Pretrial Services report is extremely important to the court. However, if either side disagrees with the recommendation, that attorney for that party may present evidence and argument as to why the recommendation is wrong.
Because there is a presumption that most defendants be released, the result of this new system has been that most defendants are being released pending trial.
What conditions could the court impose on my release?
New Jersey provides for different levels of supervision upon release which could include checking in regularly with a pre-trial officer by phone or in person or even house arrest with electronic monitoring. However, even in very serious cases, many defendants who would have been detained on exorbitant bail under the old system are now released pending trial. This means that they may continue working, going to school, and will have much easier access to their attorney and a greater ability to prepare for trial.
Can I appeal a pre-trial detention decision? Can the prosecutor appeal?
Both the defense and the prosecution may appeal a pre-trial detention decision to New Jersey’s appellate court. Either side may appeal to the appellate court by filing a notice of appeal within 48 hours of the trial court’s decision to either detain or release the defendant. Additionally, either side may file a motion to re-open the trial court’s decision with the trial judge if new circumstances or information comes to light.
Facing Criminal Charges in New Jersey? We can help.
Criminal Lawyer Zak Goldstein
Our Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers regularly defend clients in the criminal courts throughout New Jersey. We have successfully defended thousands of clients in state and federal courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation for a crime, we offer a free 15-minute criminal defense strategy session. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding criminal defense attorney today.
New Jersey’s Pre-trial Detention Rule
Rule 3:4A. Pretrial Detention
(a) Timing of Motion. A prosecutor may file a motion at any time seeking the pretrial detention of a defendant for whom a complaint-warrant or warrant on indictment is issued for an initial charge involving an indictable offense, or a disorderly persons offense involving domestic violence, as provided in N.J.S.A. 2A:162-15 et seq. A defendant who is the subject of a warrant on indictment is an eligible defendant pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:162-15 et seq.
(b) Hearing on Motion.
(1) A pretrial detention hearing shall be held before a Superior Court judge no later than the defendant’s first appearance unless the defendant or the prosecutor seeks a continuance or the prosecutor files a motion at or after the defendant’s first appearance. If the prosecutor files a motion at or subsequent to the defendant’s first appearance the pretrial detention hearing shall be held within three working days of the date of the prosecutor’s motion unless the defendant or prosecutor seek a continuance. Except for good cause, a continuance on motion of the defendant may not exceed five days, not including any intermediate Saturday, Sunday or holiday. Except for good cause, a continuance on motion of the prosecutor may not exceed three days, not including any intervening Saturday, Sunday or holiday. The Superior Court judge in making the pretrial detention decision may take into account information as set forth in N.J.S.A. 2A:162-20.
(2) The defendant shall have a right to be represented by counsel and, if indigent, to have counsel appointed if he or she cannot afford counsel. The defendant shall be provided discovery pursuant to Rule 3:4-2(c)(1)(B). The defendant shall be afforded the right to testify, to present witnesses, to cross-examine witnesses who appear at the hearing and to present information by proffer or otherwise. Testimony of the defendant given during the hearing shall not be admissible on the issue of guilt in any other judicial proceeding, but the testimony shall be admissible in proceedings related to the defendant’s subsequent failure to appear, proceedings related to any subsequent offenses committed during the defendant’s release, proceedings related to the defendant’s subsequent violation of any conditions of release, any subsequent perjury proceedings, and for the purpose of impeachment in any subsequent proceedings. The defendant shall have the right to be present at the hearing. The rules governing admissibility of evidence in criminal trials shall not apply to the presentation and consideration of information at the hearing. The return of an indictment shall establish probable cause to believe that the defendant committed any offense alleged therein. Where there is no indictment at the point of the detention hearing, the prosecutor shall establish probable cause that the defendant committed the predicate offense.
(3) A hearing may be reopened at any time before trial if the court finds that information exists that was not known by the prosecutor or defendant at the time of
the hearing and that information has a material bearing on the issue of whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance in court when required, the protection of the safety of any other person or the community, or that the defendant will not obstruct or attempt to obstruct the criminal justice process.
(4) Presumption of detention. When a motion for pretrial detention is filed pursuant to paragraph (a), there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the defendant shall be detained pending trial because no amount of monetary bail, non-monetary condition or combination of monetary bail and conditions would reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance in court when required, the protection of the safety of any other person or the community, and that the defendant will not obstruct or attempt to obstruct the criminal justice process, if the court finds probable cause that the defendant: (i) committed murder pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3; or (ii) committed any crime for which the defendant would be subject to an ordinary or extended term of life imprisonment.
(5) Presumption of release. Except when a presumption of detention is required pursuant to paragraph (b)(4), when a motion for pretrial detention is filed pursuant to paragraph (a), there shall be a rebuttable presumption that some amount of monetary bail, non-monetary conditions of pretrial release or combination of monetary bail and conditions would reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance in court when required, the protection of the safety of any other person or the community, and that the defendant will not obstruct or attempt to obstruct the criminal justice process.
The standard of proof for the rebuttal of the presumption of pretrial release shall be by clear and convincing evidence. The court may consider as prima facie evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of release a recommendation by the Pretrial Services Program established pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:162-25 that the defendant’s release is not recommended (i.e., a determination that “release not recommended or if released, maximum conditions”). Although such recommendation by the Pretrial Services Program may constitute sufficient evidence upon which the court may order pretrial detention, nothing herein shall preclude the court from considering other relevant information presented by the prosecutor or the defendant in determining whether no amount of monetary bail, non-monetary bail conditions of pretrial release or combination of monetary bail and conditions would reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance in court when required, the protection of the safety of any other person or the community, and that the defendant will not obstruct the criminal justice process.
(c) Pretrial Detention Order. If the court determines that pretrial detention is necessary it shall issue an order containing written findings of fact and a written statement of reasons for the detention. That order shall also direct that the defendant be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel.
(d) Temporary Release Order. The court may issue an order temporarily releasing the defendant, subject to conditions, to the extent that the court determines the release is necessary for the preparation of a defendant’s defense or for another compelling reason.
(e) Interlocutory Order from Appellate Division. Nothing in this Rule shall be deemed to preclude the State’s right to seek an interlocutory order from the Appellate Division within 48 hours.
Nebbia Orders | Getting a Nebbia Order Lifted in Philadelphia
Nebbia Orders require proof that the money for bail is coming from a legitimate source. We can help you get a Nebbia Order lifted.
In most Philadelphia criminal cases, the defendant will have bail set at preliminary arraignment. The defendant’s bail will be based on a number of factors, including ties to the community, previous criminal record, the nature of the charges, the strength of the evidence against the defendant, and other factors such as whether the defendant works or has prior failures to appear for court (bench warrants). Typically, if the defendant can pay 10% of the amount set by the bail commissioner, then the defendant will be released pending trial. However, in some cases, particularly those cases involving large quantities of drugs or financial crimes, the bail commissioner may also place a Nebbia Order on the defendant which can prevent the defendant from being released until the order is lifted.
What is a Nebbia Order?
A Nebbia Order is an order which prevents the defendant from being released even if the defendant can pay bail. Instead, the defense attorney must file a Motion to Lift the Nebbia Order before the defendant posts bail. The Motion must lay out exactly from where the funds which will be used to pay bail are coming in order to show that the funds for bail are not coming from illegal activities like selling drugs or financial fraud. Typically, this will mean showing that whoever is going to pay bail on the defendant’s behalf has either assets, savings, or credit sufficient to be able to afford to pay for the defendant’s bail. Thus, the Nebbia Order prevents the defendant from being released so long as the Order remains in place.
What happens if I post bail when I have a Nebbia Order?
If you post bail while you have a Nebbia Order, you will not be released. Therefore, you should always retain a criminal defense lawyer prior to posting bail so that the Nebbia can be addressed. Otherwise, the Court will likely hold onto the money until the case is over, but the defendant will remain in custody.
How do I get a Nebbia Order lifted?
Petitioning for the lifting of the Nebbia Order is relatively straight-forward, but it does require a criminal defense attorney. The defendant’s attorney must file a Motion to Lift the Nebbia Order and explain exactly where the bail money is going to come from. The defense will also be expected to provide proof that the person who is going to pay bail is going to use legitimate funds to do so. For example, if the bail is going to be paid by taking out a home equity line of credit on a house, the defense would be expected to provide proof that the loan has been approved by a bank.
Once the defense attorney files a Motion to Lift the Nebbia Order, the Court of Common Pleas Motions Judge will typically schedule a hearing in about a week in order to review the Motion and the proof of legitimate funds provided by the defense. In some cases, it may be possible to get a quicker hearing. In many cases, the Commonwealth may be satisfied that the money is indeed coming from a legitimate source and agree. In others, the Commonwealth could object, and then the Motions Judge would be required to rule on whether the defense has met its burden of providing sufficient proof that the funds are legitimate. Once the Judge is satisfied, the Judge will lift the Nebbia Order. The defendant may then post bail and be released pending trial.
Can I get my bail reduced also?
In many cases, if the defense is going to file a Motion to Lift the Nebbia Order, it may be possible to file a written Motion to Reduce Bail at the same time. Because the issue will be heard by the Court of Common Pleas Judge either way, there is often not much to lose (and potentially a lot to gain) by asking the Judge to also review the bail situation in general. Therefore, the defense can file both a Bail Reduction Motion and a Motion to Lift the Nebbia at the same time. Then, the Motions Judge can review both issues at the same time and potentially reduce bail while at the same time lifting the Nebbia Order.
Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers for Bail Reductions and Nebbia Orders
Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers - Goldstein Mehta LLC
The Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers of Goldstein Mehta LLC have successfully defended thousands of clients against all types of criminal charges. We have been particularly successful in helping clients who are incarcerated following their preliminary hearing because they cannot afford bail in getting bail reduced, Nebbia Orders removed, and detainers lifted. Our award-winning defense attorneys offer a free criminal defense strategy session to anyone who is under investigation or facing criminal charges. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with one of our Philadelphia Criminal Lawyers today.
Related Articles: