Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog

Zak Goldstein 4/4/23 Zak Goldstein 4/4/23

Third Circuit: Pennsylvania State Court Rules on Use of Co-Defendant's Confession Against Defendant Violate Confrontation Clause

Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire - Criminal Defense Lawyer

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has decided the case of Freeman v. Fayette, holding once again that Pennsylvania’s rules regarding the use of redacted statements by co-defendants against the defendant in a criminal case are unconstitutional. The Third Circuit’s decision is not technically binding on the state courts because the Third Circuit only addresses federal appeals. But because the Third Circuit eventually reviews many serious state decisions during federal habeas litigation, particularly in murder cases, the Third Circuit’s ruling could have a dramatic impact on Pennsylvania criminal procedure. In this case, the Third Circuit held once again that where a co-defendant gives a statement which implicates both the defendant and the co-defendant in the crime, redacting the co-defendant’s statement to remove the defendant’s name and replace it with “the other guy” or something similar doe snot adequately protect the defendant’s confrontation clause rights. In this case, the Court retired this point, but it did find that although the defendant’s rights had been violated, the violation amounted to harmless error because the evidence against the defendant was so strong.

The Facts of Freeman v. Fayette

The Commonwealth charged four men with robbery, kidnapping, and murder. One pleaded guilty before trial and agreed to testify against his co-conspirators. Three of the four co-defendants proceeded to trial. During the trial, the court heard testimony from various witnesses placing the four men together around the time of the crime. Finally, the Commonwealth used a statement by one of the remaining three co-defendants implicating the others. That defendant did not testify, and the statement was redacted but still referred to the other co-defendants as “the first guy" and "the second guy." The Commonwealth read the statement to the jury over the objections of the defense attorneys for those defendants. The judge instructed the jury that the statement was to be used only as evidence against the defendant who made the statement, not the co-defendants. The court also repeated this cautionary instruction at the end of the trial. A jury found all three men guilty of second-degree murder. The trial court sentenced them to the mandatory sentence of life without parole.

The Criminal Appeal

On appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the defendant’s conviction, concluding that there was no Confrontation Clause or Bruton violation. After exhausting his appeals and post-conviction relief at the state level, the defendant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the federal district court. The district court concluded that the admission of the co-defendant's statement violated the defendant’s confrontation clause rights. The court also concluded that its admission was not harmless error, so the court granted the defendant’s writ of habeas corpus. The Commonwealth then appealed the decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

What is the Confrontation Clause, and what is a Bruton issue?

The Confrontation Clause, which is part of the Sixth Amendment, provides criminal defendants with the right to confront the witnesses against them. This means they have the right to cross-examine witnesses under oath at trial. In Bruton v. United States, prosecutors tried two defendants together for armed robbery. At trial, prosecutors used one of the defendant’s confessions against him, and the statement also implicated the co-defendant. The judge instructed the jury only to use the statement against the defendant, not the co-defendant. A jury convicted both men for the crimes charged. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court violated the co-defendant’s right to confront and cross-examine despite the jury instruction because the trial court’s ruling essentially allowed the person who confessed to implicate the defendant without that person’s statement being subject to cross-examination.. Subsequent United States Supreme Court decisions have also held that redactions may not be sufficient unless they eliminate both the defendant's name and any reference to their existence. The state courts, however, have often allowed the Commonwealth to simply replace the defendant’s name with something generic like “the other guy.”

The Third Circuit’s Decision

Because the Commonwealth’s appeal challenged the district court’s ruling in habeas litigation, the Third Circuit was required to use a very deferential standard of review. Under the AEDPA, the mere fact that the state court was wrong is not enough to obtain relief. Instead, a court must first 1) determine whether there has been an error (in this case a Bruton violation), and then 2) determine whether the state court made a determination that was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. A defendant must then also show prejudice. It is enough to show the trial judge was wrong; instead, the defendant must show that the trial judge was very, very wrong and that it likely affected the outcome of the proceedings.

Here, the Commonwealth argued that using "the first guy" and "the second guy" did not facially incriminate the defendant because these substitutes did not refer to him by name. The Commonwealth therefore argued that the statement did not facially incriminate the defendant and that any incrimination effect could come only inferentially. The Superior Court, however, has held that Bruton violates generally do not occur when a statement has been redacted and any incriminating effect arises inferentially.

The defendant argued that the redactions left it so obvious who the co-defendant was talking about that they offered insufficient protection, essentially making the statement directly accusatory. It named two perpetrators and left the two perpetrators unnamed, referring to them as "the first guy" and "the second guy." This made it so that the jury only needed to look up at the defense table and see the two co-defendants to identify who the statement implicated. Accordingly, the Third Circuit rejected the conclusions of the state courts that the statement did not violate Bruton. The Court had made similar rulings on numerous occasions, to the Court also found that the state courts clearly failed to apply federal law. Unfortunately, the Court also found that the evidence against the defendant was overwhelming and that he would have been convicted even without the statement, so the Court reversed the district court’s order granting the writ of habeas corpus. The defendant will therefore not receive a new trial despite the obvious violation.

Given the Third Circuit’s ruling, the case is not helpful for the individual defendant in this case. It is, however, very helpful for criminal defendants going forward as it once again sends a message to the state courts and Commonwealth that inadequate redactions do not render a co-defendant’s statement admissible against the defendant unless the defendant has a chance to cross-examine the co-defendant.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

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 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.

Zak Goldstein 3/16/23 Zak Goldstein 3/16/23

PA Superior Court: Jail Time Required After Third Conviction for Driving on DUI Suspended License

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Rollins, holding that a defendant must be sentenced to six months’ incarceration for a third conviction for driving on a DUI suspended license under 75 Pa.C.S. § 1543(b). The appellate courts had previously concluded that trial courts could not constitutionally sentence defendants to jail time for the first two convictions because the penalty sections of the statutes do not contain maximum possible sentences, making the statute unconstitutionally vague for the first two offenses. The third offense, however, is graded as a misdemeanor of the third degree, so a court may sentence a defendant to jail.

The Facts of Rollins

The defendant had his driver’s license suspended due to a DUI conviction. He was charged with driving on a DUI suspended license in violation of 75 Pa.C.S. § 1543(b) three times. He was convicted for the first two, but the case is not clear as to what sentence he received. In 2021, he was arrested and charged with the offense for a third time. He pleaded guilty, but he argued that he could not receive jail time because the statute was unconstitutionally vague. The trial court, however, sentenced him to six to twelve months’ incarceration. The statute provides:

(iii) A third or subsequent violation of this paragraph shall constitute a misdemeanor of the third degree and, upon conviction of this paragraph, a person shall be sentenced to pay a fine of $2,500 and to undergo imprisonment for not less than six months.

The statute itself does not specify the maximum penalty, so the defendant argued that he could not receive jail time. Two appellate cases arguably supported his position. Specifically, in Commonwealth v. Eid, the defendant was convicted of the summary offense of DWS set forth at 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1543(b)(1.1)(i), which applied when an individual was found to be driving with a suspended or revoked license and refused a breath test. Section 1543(b)(1.1)(i) provided that an individual found in violation of this section “shall, upon first conviction, be guilty of a summary offense and shall be sentenced to pay a fine of $1,000 and to undergo imprisonment for a period of not less than 90 days.” Eid was sentenced to a term of ninety days to six months’ imprisonment as well as a $1,000 fine.

On appeal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that the statute was “unconstitutionally vague and inoperable” as the provision failed to provide a maximum term of incarceration. The Supreme Court affirmed Eid’s conviction and fine, but it vacated the imprisonment term as it declined to infer a maximum sentence, which would have forced the Court to “engage in sheer speculation as to which sentence the General Assembly intended.”

Shortly thereafter, in Commonwealth v. Jackson, the defendant pleaded guilty to the summary offense of DWS set forth at 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1543(b)(1)(ii), which applied when an individual was found to have a second DWS violation. Section 1543(b)(1)(ii) provided “[a] second violation of this [crime] shall constitute a summary offense and, upon conviction [ ], a person shall be sentenced to pay a fine of $1,000[.00] and to undergo imprisonment for not less than 90 days.”

The Superior Court applied Eid and found that the section was unconstitutionally vague and inoperable because it contained identical language to that in Eid. The statute provided a mandatory minimum, but it provided no maximum, and the court could not guess as to what maximum the legislature intended. Therefore, the Jackson Court affirmed Jackson’s conviction and the imposition of the fine, but it vacated the house arrest portion of the sentence.

The Superior Court’s Decision

Here, the Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence and rejected the defendant’s argument. The Court found that the statute properly provides both a minimum and a maximum. It states that the minimum sentence shall be six months’ incarceration, and it also defines the statute as a third degree misdemeanor. The crime code provides that third degree misdemeanors may be punished by up to a year in jail, and so the absence of the specific maximum in the statute itself does not make the statute unconstitutionally vague because the offense is defined as a third degree misdemeanor. Therefore, the Court found that the section was not like the flawed sections in Eid and Jackson that apply to first and second offenses. Barring any successful additional appeals, the defendant will have to serve the six to twelve month jail sentence.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Criminal Defense Attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

Zak Goldstein 3/10/23 Zak Goldstein 3/10/23

PA Superior Court: Bad Info From Third Party in Search Warrant Does Not Invalidate Warrant

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Adorno, holding that a search warrant is still valid even where the warrant contains incorrect information that has been provided by a third party. In this case, the Court found that the police relied on the information provided by a third party in good faith, so they had probable cause for the warrant. The fact that the information turned out to be wrong did not require suppression of the evidence that they later found.

Commonwealth v. Adorno

In this case, police officers discovered a Facebook Live video that showed a user named “Zay-Yaho” dancing while holding a gun and drugs. They identified the user as the defendant and determined that he had a criminal record which prohibited him from possessing a firearm. The officers learned that he lived at a certain address in Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania. They interviewed the landlord of the apartment building, and the landlord confirmed that the defendant lived there. The landlord also told them that the location in the video looked like the suspected address. The police then obtained a search warrant for that address. They executed the warrant, and they found three guns and prescription medication.

The Motion to Suppress

After finding the contraband, the police arrested the defendant. The defense filed a motion to suppress the evidence, and the trial court held a hearing on the motion to suppress. In the motion, the defense alleged that the police conducted a search without probable cause, that the search was based on incorrect information, and that the search exceeded the scope of the search warrant. Essentially, the defendant argued that the evidence should be suppressed because the video did not actually show the location that the police searched. At the hearing on the motion, the officers agreed that there were noticeable differences between the walls and layout of the home that they searched and the home in the Facebook video. Similarly, a friend of the defendant’s testified that the location in the video was her house, not the defendant’s apartment. She had not been aware of the video.

The trial court granted the motion to suppress, finding that police had searched the wrong location because the defendant’s apartment, which was the subject of the warrant, was not the location in the video. The Commonwealth appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

The Superior Court Appeal

On appeal, the Commonwealth argued that the police properly relied on a validly issued search warrant and that the fact that the warrant turned out to contain incorrect information did not render it invalid. The Superior Court agreed. First, the Court found that there was a nexus between the crime and a home that would justify the search of a home because the video showed the gun in a home. Where a defendant commits a crime on the street, police may not have probable cause to search a come because the police cannot just assume a defendant will store evidence of the crime there. But where the crime is committed in a home, the case for searching a home is stronger.

Second, the Court found the warrant to be valid despite the factual error regarding the location depicted in the video. In order for a court to find a search warrant invalid due to a factual error, the defense must show that the police intentionally included false information or included false information with a reckless disregard for the truth. Here, the defense did not even allege that the police had acted in bad faith by either lying or including the information with a reckless disregard for the truth. Accordingly, the defense failed to meet its burden. This type of motion is often called a Franks motion. Here, the defense had argued only that the information was wrong, but showing that a warrant contains incorrect information is not enough to invalidate a warrant.

Therefore, the Superior Court reversed the order granting the motion to suppress. The defendant will have to face trial in the Court of Common Pleas.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Zak Goldstein 2/17/23 Zak Goldstein 2/17/23

PA Superior Court: Police May Conduct Warrantless Inventory Search of Car if Necessary

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Thompson. The Court held that the recent decision in Commonwealth v. Alexander, in which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reinstated the requirement that police get a search warrant before searching a car, did not eliminate the inventory search exception to the warrant requirement. Under Thompson, when the requirements of the inventory search exception are met, the police may search a car without a warrant. The Court left open the issue of whether the exception may apply when the owner of the vehicle could potentially make other arrangements for the safekeeping of their property.

The Facts of Commonwealth v. Thompson

On July 1, 2020, police and medical personnel were dispatched to an AAMCO station for a report of an unconscious person in a vehicle. When the Marple Township Police Department arrived, EMT personnel were speaking to the defendant, whose vehicle was blocking two or three other cars. Police spoke to the defendant and concluded that he appeared lethargic, stumbled as he walked, and was slurring his speech. Police determined that he was incapable of operating the vehicle, and they decided to tow the car. Per departmental policy, they performed an inventory search of the vehicle to record its contents, and of course, they found a firearm. They charged the defendant with persons not to possess a firearm (VUFA § 6105).

The defendant moved to suppress the firearm, arguing that the police were required to obtain a search warrant prior to searching the vehicle. The trial court denied the motion to suppress after concluding that the police properly conducted an inventory search of the car which did not require a search warrant. The defendant was then found guilty of the charges, and he appealed.

The Superior Court Appeal

On appeal, the defendant argued that the Court’s decision in Alexander requiring a search warrant for the search of a car eliminated the inventory search exception. In response, the Commonwealth argued that Commonwealth v. Alexander dealt only with searches for evidence of a crime, and therefore it did not have any relevance in whether the inventory search remains a proper exception to the warrant requirement when dealing with an automobile.

What is an inventory search?

When the police have to tow a vehicle, they are permitted to conduct an inventory search of the vehicle. An inventory search is permissible when 1) the police have acted lawfully in impounding the vehicle and 2) the police have acted in accordance with a reasonable, standard policy of routinely securing and inventorying the contents of the impounded vehicle. Often, the challenge to an inventory search will involve challenging whether police really needed to tow the vehicle or whether they could have safely parked it or released it to someone else. In this case, the question was whether the inventory search still applied post-Alexander.

The Superior Court’s Decision

The Superior Court affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress. The court recognized that the law contains many exceptions to the warrant requirement. In other words, many searches may be allowed even where the police do not get a search warrant. Some examples include a search due to exigent circumstances, a search for weapons for officer safety, a search where contraband is in plain view, and in this case, the inventory search exception.

Here, the court concluded that Alexander did not eliminate the other exceptions that applied prior to the decision. Instead, it only held that where police are going to search a car for evidence of a crime, they must get a search warrant or have exigent circumstances and probable cause. As an inventory search theoretically has nothing to do with searching for contraband or evidence of a crime, Alexander did not make that type of search illegal.

Local police officers, unlike federal officers, frequently investigate vehicle accidents in which there is no claim of criminal liability and engage in what, for want of a better term, may be described as community caretaking functions, totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute. An inventory search falls under “community caretaking” and thus does not require any showing of probable cause or reasonable suspicion at all. Therefore, the police were not required to have probable cause, and they were allowed to search the vehicle in order to ensure that it did not contain anything dangerous and in order to protect the defendant’s belongings.

The Superior Court, however, did leave the door open to the idea that an owner could object to the inventory search or make other arrangements for moving the vehicle. This is based on the theory that inventory searches are done on the behalf of the property owner, to protect it while in custody, and shield police from disputes or claims of lost or stolen property. There could also be privacy interests at stake, in which the individual’s privacy interest outweighs the government’s interests. These arguments were not raised in this appeal, so the Superior Court did not rule on them. Obviously, the inventory search exception is ripe for abuse - police who want to search a vehicle but who don’t have probable cause for a search warrant can simply claim that it was necessary to tow the vehicle for some reason, and then they are permitted to conduct a warrantless search. Therefore, as previously mentioned, motions to suppress in these cases often involve challenging whether it was really necessary to tow the vehicle.

FACING CRIMINAL CHARGES? WE CAN HELP.