Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog

Zak Goldstein 6/8/20 Zak Goldstein 6/8/20

PA Superior Court: Trial Judge Improperly Usurped Role of Jury By Deciding Gradation of Witness Intimidation Charge

Philadelphia Criminal Lawyer Zak Goldstein

The Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Raymond, holding that the trier of fact must make a specific finding of how the defendant “intimidated” a witness before the trial court can impose an enhanced felony gradation for the charge at sentencing. The Superior Court rejected the Commonwealth’s argument that the court could decide the gradation itself in the absence of a specific ruling from the jury.

Commonwealth v. Raymond

Philadelphia police charged the defendant with intimidation of a witness, retaliation against a witness, and possession of an instrument of a crime (“PIC”) based on his interactions with the complainant. Prior to the initiation of this case, the complainant had cooperated with law enforcement officials who charged the defendant’s friend with first degree murder. At the preliminary hearing for the murder case, the complainant testified that the defendant’s friend murdered the victim in that case.

The defendant and the complainant knew each other because they had lived in the same neighborhood for years. As the complainant had agreed to testify against the defendant’s friend at his murder trial, the complainant was placed in a witness protection program and relocated to another neighborhood approximately ten to fifteen minutes away. The complainant testified that he was concerned for his safety in his former neighborhood and no longer kept in contact with friends there because he had been labeled a snitch.

Shortly before the murder trial, the complainant was outside with his wife and his daughter at his residence when the defendant approached in his vehicle. After the defendant exited the vehicle and greeted the complainant’s family, the complainant’s wife and daughter went inside the residence. While the two men were alone, the defendant told the complainant that “I know where you was at. I would have done reach out and touched you, but I wanted to give you an opportunity to make shit right.” The complainant interpreted the defendant’s statement as an effort to convince him not to testify at the murder trial. The complainant then subsequently asked the defendant to leave. The defendant then said that “I’ve been up to the prison to see [defendant’s friend]. I know everything. And you got to make this shit right.”

The complainant then went inside his residence. He watched from his window as the defendant went back to his car, grabbed a black firearm, and tucked it under his shirt. The defendant then said “what are you gonna do?” while he placed his hand on his gun. After the complainant shut his door, he heard the defendant say “I know where you’re at.” The defendant then drove away.

After the defendant drove away, he called the complainant’s cell phone and stated “I shouldn’t have came. I don’t want you to feel threatened.” The defendant then stated that he did not want to be involved as the matter was between the complainant and his friend. As a result of this incident, the complainant relocated his family again to an unspecified address, which required his daughter to change schools. The complainant testified against the defendant’s friend, and that person was convicted of murder.

After the murder trial, the complainant testified about two incidents that occurred that made him feel he was being retaliated against for his testifying against defendant’s friend. First, he saw two men in a van parked outside of his home. One of the men was the defendant’s friend from his old neighborhood. Additionally, the complainant also found a dead bird on his doorstep. This was symbolic because the defendant’s nickname was tweet. The defendant, however, was in custody during both of these incidents.

The defendant went to trial with a jury. The above testimony was presented and he was convicted of all charges with the exception of PIC. It should be noted that there was not a specific finding by the jury as to how the defendant “intimidated” the complainant. This is important because intimidation has various subsections which trigger different gradations - it can range from a misdemeanor carrying only a few years in prison to a felony for which someone can get twenty years.

After his conviction, he filed a motion for extraordinary relief arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support either of his convictions. Regarding the witness intimidation charge, the defendant was originally charged under §4952(a)(1) which, as shown below, does not fit the facts that the Commonwealth alleged. The defendant also argued that there was no evidence to show that he made a specific threat or used violence to retaliate against the complainant for testifying at his friend’s preliminary hearing and thus there was insufficient evidence to convict him of that charge. The trial court agreed that there was insufficient evidence to convict him for the retaliation against a witness charge, however it denied the defendant’s motions on the intimidation of a witness charge. At his sentencing, the defendant was sentenced to six to twelve years’ incarceration. The defendant then filed a timely post-sentence motion which was denied. He then filed a timely appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

What is an Intimidation of a Witness Charge in Pennsylvania?

The charge of intimidation of a witness is governed by 18 Pa C.S.A. § 4952. The statute provides that a person can be guilty of intimidating a witness:

if with the intent to or with the knowledge that his conduct will obstruct, impede, impair, prevent, or interfere with the administration of justice he intimidates or attempts to intimidate any witness or victim to” do any of the following:

Refrain from informing or reporting to any law enforcement officer, prosecuting official or judge concerning any information, document or thing relating to the commission of a crime.
Give any false or misleading information or testimony relating to the commission of any crime to any law enforcement officer, prosecuting official or judge.
Withhold any testimony, information, document or thing relating to the commission of a crime from any law enforcement officer, prosecuting official or judge.
Give any false or misleading information or testimony or refrain from giving any testimony, information, document or thing, relating to the commission of a crime, to an attorney representing a criminal defendant.
Elude, evade or ignore any request to appear or legal process summoning him to appear to testify or supply evidence.
Absent himself from any proceeding or investigation to which he has been legally summoned.

The penalty for being found guilty of intimidating a witness can be very severe. 18 Pa C.S.A. § 4952 (b)(1) lists how the charge of witness intimidation may be graded:

The offense is a felony of the degree indicated in paragraphs (2) through (4) if:
The actor employs force, violence or deception, or threatens to employ force or violence, upon the witness or victim or, with the requisite intent or knowledge upon any other person.
The actor offers any pecuniary or other benefit to the witness or victim or, with the requisite intent or knowledge, to any other person.
The actor's conduct is in furtherance of a conspiracy to intimidate a witness or victim.
The actor accepts, agrees or solicits another to accept any pecuniary or other benefit to intimidate a witness or victim.
The actor has suffered any prior conviction for any violation of this section or any predecessor law hereto, or has been convicted, under any Federal statute or statute of any other state, of an act which would be a violation of this section if committed in this State.
The offense is a felony of the first degree if a felony of the first degree or murder in the first or second degree was charged in the case in which the actor sought to influence or intimidate a witness or victim as specified in this subsection.
The offense is a felony of the second degree if a felony of the second degree is the most serious offense charged in the case in which the actor sought to influence or intimidate a witness or victim as specified in this subsection.
The offense is a felony of the third degree in any other case in which the actor sought to influence or intimidate a witness or victim as specified in this subsection.
Otherwise the offense is a misdemeanor of the second degree.

The statute requires the Commonwealth to prove specific things in order to obtain an enhanced sentence. If the Commonwealth wants the witness intimidation charge to be graded as a felony of the first degree, it is not sufficient to show that the underlying case was also listed as felony of the first degree or a murder, but they must also show that the defendant “intimidated” the witness in one of the enumerated ways listed in 18 Pa C.S.A. § 4952 (b)(1)(i)-(iv). In the instant case, the defendant argued that because the jury did not specifically find which way the defendant “intimidated” the witness, he was entitled to the least severe grading which is a misdemeanor of the second degree.

The Superior Court’s Decision

The Superior Court agreed with the defendant that his conviction should have been graded as a misdemeanor of the second degree. The reason is because the jury did not make a specific finding as to how the defendant “intimidated” the complainant. Per 18 Pa C.S.A. § 4952 (b)(1), a criminal defendant can only receive an enhanced grading if the trier of fact finds that the defendant “intimidated” a witness through one of those enumerated points. Because the jury did not make a specific finding of how the defendant “intimidated” the complainant, his conviction could not be upgraded to the higher grading. Therefore, the trial court should have found that it was a misdemeanor and sentenced him to a maximum of two years’ incarceration.

Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help.

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Lawyers in Philadelphia

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. 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.

Zak Goldstein 6/4/20 Zak Goldstein 6/4/20

PA Superior Court: Acquittal on New Charges Voids Prior Probation Violation for Same Alleged Conduct

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Giliam, holding that where a defendant has been found in violation of probation for a new arrest and is subsequently acquitted in that case, the violation of probation must be vacated as a result of the acquittal. This is a great case as it limits the ability of courts to find defendants in violation of probation for alleged criminal conduct of which they are ultimately acquitted.

The Facts of Gilliam

In Gilliam, the defendant pleaded guilty to terroristic threats and received a sentence of three years’ probation along with other conditions. Shortly after his sentencing, he was arrested and charged with aggravated assault, simple assault, and resisting arrest. The court lodged a probation detainer pending the outcome of the new case. A probation detainer holds a defendant in custody until the new charges are resolved unless the defense files a motion to lift the detainer and the court agrees to do so.

Before the new case could be resolved, the Commonwealth filed a motion to proceed with a probation violation hearing prior to trial. This procedure is called a “Daisy Kates” hearing as those were the names of the defendants in two appellate cases where the courts held that prosecutors could essentially conduct mini trials on the new charges at a probation hearing in order to convince the judge that a violation had occurred and the defendant should be sentenced for new criminal conduct.

Prosecutors like this procedure because violation of probation hearings are less formal, defendants have fewer protections than in a real trial, and the prosecutor must only convince a judge by a preponderance of the evidence instead of a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. These proceedings also may take place before the preliminary hearing, the exchange of discovery, and before the defense has had time to fully investigate the case. Accordingly, the odds are stacked against the defendant at a Daisy Kates hearing. Because Pennsylvania law allows judges almost unlimited discretion in imposing long sentences of incarceration following a probation violation, prosecutors can seek even longer sentences than they often would in the new case.

The Daisy Kates Hearing

The trial court agreed to hold the Daisy Kates hearing. At the hearing, one of the arresting officers and the defendant testified as to what happened. The court found the officer credible and that the defendant had lied. The court then found the defendant in violation of his probation and sentenced him to 2.5 – 5 years’ incarceration. This all took place despite the fact that the defendant was still presumed innocent on the new charges.

The Criminal Appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court

The defendant appealed the probation violation sentence to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. Appeals often move slowly, and while the appeal was pending, the defendant was found not guilty at his actual trial on the new charges. The defendant then argued to the Superior Court that the violation of probation sentence could not stand because he had been acquitted of the conduct for which the court found him in violation.

The Superior Court’s Ruling

The Superior Court agreed. The court noted that a defendant’s probation can be revoked in two circumstances: 1) the defendant violated a specific condition of his or probation (a technical violation), or 2) the defendant committed a new crime. A violation of probation does not occur simply when the probation court believes that probation is not working or that the defendant has engaged in antisocial conduct. Instead, there must actually be a new crime or a violation of a specific condition of probation.

Once a court finds a violation of probation, the court may only sentence a defendant to incarceration if: 1) the defendant has been convicted of a new crime, 2) the defendant’s conduct makes it likely that he or she will commit a new crime if not incarcerated, or 3) incarceration is essential to vindicate the authority of the court.

Here, the trial court found the defendant in violation of his probation solely because he had been arrested and charged with new crimes. He did not violate any other condition of his probation. Given that the new charges were the entire basis of the probation violation and that the defendant was subsequently acquitted of those charges, the probation violation could not stand. The court therefore found that the probation revocation sentence was void. The court further suggested that trial courts wait until after disputed criminal charges have been resolved before proceeding with probation violation hearings in order to avoid this perverse outcome of a defendant serving time for a probation violation which never actually happened.

Recent decisions such as this one have made it extremely difficult for the Commonwealth to proceed with probation violation hearings under the Daisy Kates doctrine. In a recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court case, the Court held that illegally seized evidence could no longer be used at such a hearing. Now, the courts have clarified that an acquittal will undo a prior violation of probation finding. Therefore, if you are facing a violation of probation due to an arrest on new charges, you should speak with one of our award-winning criminal lawyers about your options today.

Do you need a criminal lawyer in Philadelphia, PA? We can help.

Philadelphia Criminal Lawyers - Goldstein Mehta LLC

Zak Goldstein 5/25/20 Zak Goldstein 5/25/20

PA Superior Court: ARD Does Not Count as Prior Offense for DUI Sentencing

The Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Chichkin, holding that a defendant’s prior acceptance of an accelerated rehabilitative disposition (“ARD”) does not qualify as a prior conviction for purposes of the DUI sentencing statute. This decision is a huge win for DUI defendants because many people will no longer be exposed to longer mandatory minimum sentences for a second DUI arrest if the prior arrest was resolved with the ARD program. It also fully recognizes that ARD does not count as a conviction or admission of guilt for any purposes.

Commonwealth v. Chichkin

The defendant was arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence for an incident that occurred on December 8, 2017. His case proceeded to trial in the Philadelphia Municipal Court on May 18, 2018, at which time the court found him guilty of two counts of DUI-general impairment under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(a)(1). The Municipal Court sentenced him to a term of 30 days to six months’ imprisonment, with two months’ concurrent probation. The 30-day mandatory minimum was imposed under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3804(b)(2)(i) because the defendant had accepted ARD for a prior DUI offense in 2013. If he had not had a prior ARD acceptance, then the mandatory minimum for his DUI sentence would have instead been 48 hours’ incarceration.

The defendant filed a timely motion for reconsideration seeking to “bar consideration of [his] prior ARD acceptance for sentencing purposes because the statutory framework violates several provisions of the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions.” The court granted reconsideration and vacated the defendant’s sentence. However, following a hearing on the post-sentence motion, the Municipal Court denied reconsideration and reinstated the original sentence. The defendant filed a timely petition for writ of certiorari in the Court of Common Pleas. The trial court denied the writ but stayed the defendant’s sentence pending appeal. The defendant then filed a timely appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

Why Does it Matter if I Have a Prior Conviction for DUI?

The reason it matters is because if you have a prior DUI, then you will be subjected to an enhanced mandatory minimum if you are convicted of a subsequent DUI. 75 Pa.C.S. § 3804 lists the criminal penalties for a defendant after a conviction for DUI. These penalties can be quite harsh, especially considering that these are mandatory sentences and therefore the judge has no discretion in the imposition of the sentence.

For example, let’s assume a defendant is convicted of DUI while under the influence of controlled substances and this is his first DWI conviction. Because it is the defendant’s first conviction, the mandatory minimum for a first offense involving a controlled substance is three days’ incarceration. However, let’s assume that this defendant actually had a prior conviction for drunk driving and then is found guilty of DWI while under the influence of controlled substances. The mandatory minimum for this offense is now 90 days’ incarceration. This means that the defendant’s prior record can have a dramatic effect on his or her sentence.

Why Would ARD Count as a Prior Conviction?

Under the language of the statute, entry into the ARD program should count as a prior conviction. 75 Pa.C.S. § 3806 defines what constitutes a prior conviction for the DUI statute. According to 75 Pa.C.S. § 3804, if you previously accepted an ARD offer, the ARD counts as a prior conviction and thus you would be subjected to the enhanced penalties for second time offenders. In the instant case, the defendant was appealing this issue based on his argument that the statute was unconstitutional.

The Superior Court’s Decision

The Superior Court found that it was unconstitutional to count the defendant’s prior ARD as a prior conviction. In reaching its decision, the Pennsylvania Superior Court looked at previous appellate decisions. In its research, the Superior Court found that it was not unconstitutional to give a defendant an enhanced or mandatory sentence based on a prior conviction. However, the Superior Court found that it is unconstitutional to give a defendant an enhanced or mandatory sentence based on a fact that a defendant was not found guilty of beyond a reasonable doubt by a trier of fact (i.e. a jury or a judge).

This scenario used to be common in drug possession cases (for example, selling drugs within a certain distance of a school or based on the weight of a drug). Not too long ago, a defendant could receive an enhanced mandatory minimum sentence because the Commonwealth presented evidence that the defendant had a certain amount of drugs or was within a certain amount of feet near a school. However, Pennsylvania courts found that this was unconstitutional. They held that in order for a defendant to receive this enhanced or mandatory sentence, the trier of fact must specifically find that the defendant committed the conduct which increased the penalty in question beyond a reasonable doubt. It was not sufficient for the Commonwealth to merely present this fact during its case-in-chief or to the judge at sentencing. Instead, the trier of fact had specifically find that the defendant committed this fact beyond a reasonable doubt before a defendant could receive the enhanced sentence.

This resulted in many Pennsylvania mandatory minimum statutes being struck down because they allowed the judge to make findings on mandatory minimum issues at sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence standard instead of requiring that these things be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, the Superior Court analogized these prior decisions which struck down mandatory minimum sentences in Pennsylvania to the ARD statute, which allowed for a defendant to receive an increased sentence despite no finding of guilt by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the question was whether a prior ARD qualified as a “fact” or a prior conviction.

After reviewing these prior decisions, the court found that admission into an ARD program could not be considered a prior conviction for any offense other than DUI’s. Further, when the Superior Court analyzed the procedure of accepting an ARD offer, it found that because a defendant does not have to admit his guilt and the Commonwealth is not required to prove the defendant’s culpability beyond a reasonable doubt, a defendant’s prior acceptance of ARD does not qualify as a “prior conviction.” As such, the Superior Court found that 75 Pa.C.S. § 3806 and § 3804 are unconstitutional. The defendant will be re-sentenced as a first-time offender.

Need a criminal lawyer in Philadelphia, PA? We can help.

Zak Goldstein 5/24/20 Zak Goldstein 5/24/20

PA Supreme Court: Reckless Introduction of False Evidence Bars Retrial of Wrongfully Convicted Defendant

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Johnson, holding that the Pennsylvania Constitution’s Double Jeopardy Clause bars a retrial where the original conviction was based on false evidence and prosecutorial misconduct occurred in the form of prosecutors acting recklessly with respect to seeking the admission of the false evidence. This is an important case which sharpens the teeth of PA’s Double Jeopardy Clause and which provides some accountability for prosecutors who introduce evidence at trial that turns out to be false.

The Facts of Johnson

In Johnson, the victim, Walter Smith, told the police that a man named Clinton Robinson had killed a woman named Margaret Thomas. Later that year, Smith was shot and killed outside of a Philadelphia bar. Based on the ballistics evidence, police believed that there were multiple shooters. Police also found a red baseball cap near Smith’s body.

Debbie Williams, a friend of Smith’s, went to the police station and made a statement to Philadelphia police. She claimed that as they left the bar, there were numerous people outside on the sidewalk or in the street. A man who was wearing a red article of clothing pushed past her towards Smith. She heard shots, so she ducked, and she did not see the shooting. She then saw people run away. After the gunshots, she saw the person who had been wearing the red hat run past her, as well. She went to Smith’s body and picked up his baseball hat, which had a hole in it. The police arrived soon thereafter and took her to the station. She gave the hat to the police.

The case was not solved until 2005. In 2005, a jailhouse informant named Bryant Younger, who was under indictment in a federal drug case, told police that he heard the defendant, who was also in custody, make statements implicating himself in Smith’s murder. The police obtained the defendant’s DNA and compared it to DNA recovered from the red hat. They found that there was a match.

The Commonwealth then somehow got confused and failed to realize that there were two hats – a red hat which was found in the street, and a black hat which Smith had been wearing. The black hat had been tested and in fact had Smith’s blood and DNA on it, and the red hat had the defendant’s DNA on it. But somehow the Commonwealth believed that there was one hat with both men’s DNA on it. The Commonwealth arrested the defendant and charged him with first-degree murder, conspiracy, and possessing an instrument of crime. The case went to trial, and at trial, the Commonwealth’s crucial piece of evidence was the red hat with the DNA on it.

However, due to the Commonwealth’s apparent confusion, the prosecutor argued that the shooter, who was wearing the red hat, must have gotten in close to Smith and shot him, leading both to his own DNA being on the red hat as well as Smith’s blood. This was wrong because Smith’s blood was not actually on the red hat; it was on the black hat.

Nonetheless, the DNA analyst also testified that Smith’s blood and the defendant’s DNA were both found on “the hat.” The defendant’s attorney somehow never challenged the underlying premise that there were two hats. He argued that the DNA may not have been reliable and that no one actually saw the defendant commit the shooting. The prosecution emphasized that the decedent’s blood was on the same hat as the defendant’s DNA in closing argument. The jury convicted, and the court sentenced the defendant to death.

The Post-Conviction Relief Act Litigation

The defendant eventually filed a PCRA Petition after his attorneys uncovered the fact that there had been two hats and the decedent’s blood was only on the black hat. The Commonwealth agreed that the defendant should receive a new trial and also agreed not to seek the death penalty. The court granted a new trial.

Discovery Motions and Double Jeopardy Motions

The defendant then began filing discovery motions based on the finding of the two hats. The motion eventually evolved into a motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds due to prosecutorial misconduct in introducing false evidence – the false evidence being that there was only one hat. This led to various evidentiary hearings at which the prosecutors and detectives involved in the original trial had to testify. It quickly became clear to the court that the Commonwealth had not intentionally misstated the evidence but had gotten confused and believed that there was only one hat. Some police officers, however, had also exaggerated the evidence if not completely misstated it.

Following the evidentiary hearing, the defendant moved to dismiss the case. One officer had exaggerated the extent to which he saw blood stains on the red hat, and the other detectives and prosecutors believed that there was only one hat despite the fact that the Commonwealth clearly had two hats in its possession with separate property receipt numbers. He argued that regardless of whether the mistake was intentional or reckless, he had to spend nine years on death row, and the case should therefore be dismissed. The Commonwealth agreed that mistakes were made, but it argued that the mistakes had not been intentional, so it should be permitted to retry the defendant.

The trial court denied the motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds. It found that the Commonwealth had acted recklessly, not intentionally, and because the Commonwealth had not acted in bad faith, the double jeopardy clause did not apply. It did, however, permit the defendant to appeal prior to the re-trial by finding that such an appeal would not be frivolous. The Superior Court affirmed, and the defendant appealed further to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The Supreme Court accepted the case and reversed the conviction.

The Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Court barred the prosecution of the defendant and dismissed the charges against him.

First, it accepted the trial court’s findings that prosecutors had not acted intentionally but had acted either recklessly or with gross negligence. They had not conspired to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, but they had made so many inexplicable mistakes that the mistakes rose to a level of more than just ordinary negligence.

Second, the Court found that the Pennsylvania Constitution provides greater protections than the United States Constitution. Federal appellate courts have found that the United States Constitution requires intentional misconduct in order for the double jeopardy clause to apply and bar a retrial. But the Supreme Court found that Pennsylvania’s Constitution bars a retrial where the first conviction was vacated as a result of prosecutorial misconduct that occurred recklessly.

The purpose of the double jeopardy clause is not only to penalize prosecutorial error, but also to protect citizens from the embarrassment, expense, and ordeal of a second trial for the same offense. It should also prevent compelling them to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent they may be found guilty.

When the government engages in improper actions sufficiently damaging to undercut the fairness of a trial, it does not matter much to the defendant whether the prosecution did it on purpose. Therefore, the double jeopardy clause applies to bar retrial both when the prosecution acts intentionally as well as recklessly. Because the prosecution here clearly acted recklessly, the Commonwealth could not re-try the defendant, and the Court dismissed the case.

Do you need a criminal lawyer in Philadelphia, PA? We can help.

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, DUI, and Murder. 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.