Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog

Zak Goldstein 10/14/19 Zak Goldstein 10/14/19

PA Superior Court: Double Jeopardy Protections Do Not Prevent Multiple Prosecutions for Unrelated but Similar Burglaries and Thefts

The Pennsylvania Superior Court decided the case of Commonwealth v. Jefferson, holding that a defendant is not entitled to Double Jeopardy relief when he pleads guilty to cases that were not part of the same criminal episode as his remaining open cases. This is not a surprising decision given the facts of these particular cases. Nonetheless, these cases highlight another tool that defense attorneys can use to fight the charges against their clients.

Commonwealth v. Jefferson

The defendant had multiple cases involving theft and burglary-related charges. The facts of each one will be discussed in the subsequent paragraphs. The first case occurred on October 19, 2015. On that date, a witness observed the defendant and another individual in the backyard of a home located on Rittenhouse Street in Philadelphia. The witness, who lived in the neighborhood and knew the homeowner, did not recognize the two men. After a brief conversation, the defendant and the other individual entered a vehicle and left. The witness called 911 to report the incident and provided the number on the license plate to the authorities. Additionally, upon inspection of the home, the homeowner noticed that there were pry marks along the metal frame of the door. The defendant did not have permission to be inside the homeowner’s residence. The defendant was subsequently charged with attempted burglary, criminal mischief, and conspiracy.

The second case involved an incident that took placed on Mansfield Avenue in Philadelphia. The resident of the property in question observed the defendant and another individual break into this home. This resident saw his basement door open which caused him to run outside to flag down a police officer. After finding an officer, he jogged back home and observed the defendant running across the awnings of his home as well as nearby buildings. He also noticed that a black SUV (the same car that was used in the Rittenhouse burglary), which was later to be determined stolen, was parked in the driveway of his residence. The defendant was charged with two separate dockets: the first was burglary, criminal mischief, and other charges, the second docket was for receipt of stolen property, and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle.

While the defendant was awaiting trial on the above cases, he was subsequently charged with six separate dockets with one count of criminal mischief at each case. These charges stemmed from the previously mentioned flight from the Mansfield Avenue residence which resulted in the defendant damaging six awnings during his escape. This resulted in thousands of dollars in damage to these residences. The defendant pleaded guilty to all six of these criminal mischief cases.

After the defendant pleaded guilty to these six other cases, he filed motions seeking to bar prosecution of the more serious burglary cases. The defendant argued that prosecution was barred by 18 Pa.C.S. § 110(1)(ii) which prohibits subsequent prosecutions for cases that arise from the same criminal episode. The trial court denied his motion, with the exception of the criminal mischief charge in the Mansfield burglary case. The defendant then filed an interlocutory appeal arguing that the trial court improperly denied his motion to dismiss the remaining cases against him. On appeal, the Commonwealth conceded that the Mansfield burglary should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 110 because the flight from the burglary, which damaged the awnings, was part of the same criminal incident. However, the Commonwealth argued that the stolen car and the Rittenhouse burglary cases should not be dismissed because they were not related to the Mansfield burglary..

What is Rule 110?

Rule 110 is Pennsylvania’s statute that prohibits multiple prosecutions that arise from the same criminal episode. In other words, it is the codified version of both the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions’ prohibition against Double Jeopardy. There is a four-part test to determine whether subsequent prosecution should be barred:

The former prosecution must have resulted in an acquittal or conviction;
The current prosecution is based upon the same criminal conduct or arose from the same criminal episode as the former prosecution;
The prosecutor was aware of the instant charges before the commencement of the trial on the former charges; and
The current offense occurred within the same judicial district as the former prosecution.

If all of these elements are met, then the case should be dismissed. As a practical matter, attorneys usually only litigate the second element because the other elements are easy to determine whether they have been satisfied. In the instant case, the Commonwealth only argued that the second element had not been satisfied, meaning the Commonwealth argued that the incidents were unrelated.

The Superior Court’s Decision

The Superior Court denied the defendant’s appeal. The Superior Court held that there was no logical relationship between the Rittenhouse burglary case, the stolen car, and the awnings cases. The awnings cases were the result of the defendant fleeing the scene from the Mansfield burglary. As such, it had no connection to the Rittenhouse burglary. Further, the Superior Court rejected the defendant’s argument that the use of the same stolen car in both burglaries connected the incidents for purposes of triggering double jeopardy protections. Therefore, the defendant will have to face trial for both the Rittenhouse burglary and the stolen car cases.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Criminal Defense Lawyers Demetra Mehta and Zak Goldstein

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 7/23/19 Zak Goldstein 7/23/19

PA Superior Court: Commonwealth May Amend Bills of Information to Include New Victim on Day of Trial Unless Defendant Shows Prejudice

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Jackson, holding that the trial court properly permitted the prosecution to amend the Bills of Information to include new victims on the morning of trial because the defendant was on notice of those victims and failed to show any prejudice due to the amendment.

The Facts of Jackson

In Jackson, the defendant was charged with Terroristic Threats (M1) in Philadelphia for allegedly threatening various co-workers at his federal job. The defendant had a number of telephone conversations and left a number of voice mails in which he used racial slurs, threatened co-workers, and said other generally distasteful and unsettling things. The majority of these phone calls, however, involved making these threats towards other co-workers to a specific co-worker with whom he was more friendly. He did not really, however, threaten the one co-worker to whom he made the majority of his comments.

Can the Commonwealth Amend the Bills of Information on the Day of Trial?

Prior to trial, the Commonwealth filed Bills of Information. The Bills of Information generally identify the charges which a defendant will face as well as the name of the victim, the date on which the crime allegedly occurred, and the gradation of the charges. The Commonwealth may later move to amend the Bills of Information, but if the Commonwealth has failed to prove the charges as identified in the Bills by the end of the trial, then the court should find insufficient evidence to convict a defendant. In this case, the original Bills of Information listed only the co-worker who he did not really threaten as the victim. Instead, the defendant had made a number of threatening remarks about other co-workers to that co-worker. Realizing this error, the Commonwealth moved to amend the Bills of Information on the day of the bench trial.

The defense attorney objected to the Commonwealth’s motion to amend the Bills, but the trial court permitted the amendment. The defendant then proceeded by way of bench trial and was found guilty of one count of Terroristic Threats. He was subsequently sentenced to three years of reporting probation, and he appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

The Superior Court Appeal

On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed the conviction. The defendant raised the issue of whether the trial court improperly permitted the Commonwealth to amend the Bills of Information on the day of trial, but the Superior Court rejected this argument.

First, the Court reasoned that the majority of the defendant’s argument had been waived by the defendant’s failure to make specific objections on the day of trial and by the defense attorney’s sloppy drafting of the Statement of Errors. Further, the Court concluded that even if the arguments were not waived, they should be rejected.

The Court reasoned that under Pa.R.Crim.P. 564:

The court may allow an information to be amended, provided that the information as amended does not charge offenses arising from a different set of events and that the amended charges are not so materially different from the original charge that the defendant would be unfairly prejudiced. Upon amendment, the court may grant such postponement of trial or other relief as is necessary in the interests of justice.

The purpose of the rule is to make sure that the defendant knows what he is charged with and does not have to devise a new defense on the day of trial. In deciding whether to grant an amendment, a court should consider the following factors as to whether the defendant was prejudiced:

Whether the amendment changes the factual scenario,
Whether new facts, previously unknown to the defendant were added,
Whether the description of the charges changed,
Whether the amendment necessitated a change in defense strategy,
And whether the timing of the request for the amendment allowed for ample notice and preparation by the defendant.

Here, the Court court concluded that the defendant failed to show any prejudice which would have justified denying the motion to amend the Bills of Information. The alleged victims were clearly identified at the preliminary hearing and in the pre-trial discovery provided by the Commonwealth, and the complaint also put the defendant on notice of the threats with which he was charged. Therefore, amending the bills to add the additional co-workers did not prejudice the defendant as he already knew what he was charged with doing. The Court denied the appeal, and it found sufficient evidence to uphold the defendant’s conviction for Terroristic Threats.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Zak Goldstein 6/20/19 Zak Goldstein 6/20/19

United States v. Gamble: US Supreme Court Declines To Provide State/Federal Double Jeopardy Protections

The United States Supreme Court has decided the case of Gamble v. United States. This decision upholds the concept of dual sovereignty which, for purposes of criminal law, allows both the federal government and a state government to prosecute a defendant for the exact same crime. It therefore remains the law that a criminal defendant cannot claim the protections of double jeopardy if he or she was already prosecuted at the state level if the federal government is unhappy with the result and decides to file charges.

Gamble v. United States

In November 2015, a police officer in Mobile, Alabama pulled the defendant over for a damaged headlight. When the officer approached the defendant, he smelled marijuana. The officer searched Gamble’s car, and he found a loaded 9mm handgun. The defendant had previously been convicted of second-degree robbery, and thus he was prohibited from possessing a firearm. At his trial, the defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of violating Alabama’s felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm statute.

After his plea, federal prosecutors then indicted him for the same instance of possession under federal law. The defendant then filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the federal indictment was for the same offense as the one at issue in his state conviction and violated his double jeopardy rights as provided by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Federal District Court denied his motion, invoking the dual-sovereignty doctrine. The defendant then pleaded guilty to the federal offense, but appealed on double jeopardy grounds. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. The defendant then filed a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, and the justices agreed to hear the case.

What is Double Jeopardy?

The Double Jeopardy Clauses of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, § 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution protect a defendant from repeated criminal prosecutions for the same criminal episode. The basic premise behind the Double Jeopardy Clause is that the government only gets one opportunity to convict a defendant, as such if the defendant is acquitted of a crime then the government cannot continue putting him on trial until they secure a conviction. A conviction also triggers Double Jeopardy protection which is what the defendant in Gamble argued before the United States Supreme Court.

What is The Dual-Sovereignty Doctrine?

The Dual-Sovereignty Doctrine is the idea that more than one sovereign (for example a state government and the federal government) may prosecute an individual without violating the prohibition against double jeopardy if the individual’s act breaks the laws of each sovereignty. Further, the Supreme Court has held that an act denounced as a crime by both national and state sovereignties is an offense against the peace and dignity of both and may be punished by each. As such, a citizen owes a separate and independent allegiance to each sovereign government and must abide by their respective laws. This doctrine is sometimes often referred to as an exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. However, as Justice Alito points out in Gamble, that this is “not an exception at all” because the text of the Fifth Amendment prohibits a subsequent prosecution for an “offense,” not an act.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

In a 7-2 ruling, the United States Supreme Court declined to overturn previous precedent upholding the Dual-Sovereignty Doctrine. In its opinion, the Supreme Court focused on how Double Jeopardy Bars subsequent prosecutions for offenses and not acts. Double Jeopardy protects individuals from being in jeopardy “for the same offense.” The Court then analyzed previous decisions which all consistently held that an offense is something that is defined by law and that each law is defined by a sovereign aka government. Therefore, because the U.S. Constitution did not do away with the sovereignty of the states, states are free to make their own laws as well. Consequently, both the federal government and the states could have similar interests in preventing specific evils and thus could have identical laws (i.e. prohibiting persons who have certain convictions from possessing a gun). Therefore, a person can be convicted in both federal and state court for the exact same conduct.

The Court provided a number of hypotheticals to support its ruling that the defendant’s argument should fail. For example, the Court gave the hypothetical of what if a US citizen was killed in a different country (which is a federal offense) and that country prosecuted the murderer and convicted him. Per the Court, if it were to apply jeopardy to acts and not just offenses, then arguably the United States Government would be precluded from prosecuting the murderer because he had already been prosecuted by a foreign government. Per the Court, this is not what the founding fathers intended when they ratified the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly, the defendant will not get relief, and he will be forced to serve both his state sentence and his federal sentence.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorneys Demetra Mehta and Zak Goldstein

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 state and federal courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals and dismissals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and First-Degree 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 6/20/19 Zak Goldstein 6/20/19

Can I be tried for the same crime in state and federal court?

Double Jeopardy Protections

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

— The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

Double jeopardy is an issue that frequently comes up when a defendant commits a crime in multiple jurisdictions such as different states, different counties, or the state and federal system. The issue often arises either when the defendant’s conduct violates both state and federal law or when the crime takes place in multiple states. Most people have a general idea of what double jeopardy is, but many are surprised to learn that United States Constitution’s double jeopardy protections are much weaker than one might think. In general, double jeopardy is the idea that a defendant may not be tried twice for the same case. If the defendant has already been convicted or acquitted, then the defendant should not be tried again for the same crime in the same court.

A Defendant Who Is Acquitted Cannot Be Tried Twice In The Same Jurisdiction

This rule holds true in both Pennsylvania and federal courts to the extent that a defendant who is acquitted in a Pennsylvania court may not be tried again in a Pennsylvania court and a defendant who is acquitted in a federal court generally may not be tried again in a federal court. However, the law becomes much more complicated when the issue is whether a defendant may face charges in both Pennsylvania and federal court or Pennsylvania and another state.

The Federal Government May Prosecute Despite a State Court Conviction or Acquittal

Federal law provides very weak protections against a defendant facing charges in both state and federal court for the same conduct. In the federal system, it is possible for the federal government to bring criminal charges against a defendant who has already been convicted of a state crime for the same conduct. The Department of Justice has guidelines which discourage prosecutors from bringing charges against a defendant who has already faced charges in the state system, but there is no absolute ban on the federal government’s ability to do so. Further, federal prosecutors in Philadelphia have recently begun to routinely disregard those guidelines due to political disagreements between the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office as to how harshly certain defendants should be punished upon conviction. Federal prosecutions of defendants who have previously faced charges in the state system are now increasingly common.

Therefore, a defendant who has been acquitted of charges in the Pennsylvania courts could be charged with and tried in the federal system despite the fact that the defendant already won the case in Pennsylvania. This is because of the idea that the state and the federal government are “dual sovereigns.” This means that under federal law, both the United States and state government may both prosecute you for a crime without violating the constitutional protection against double jeopardy if your act violated both state laws and federal statute.

Recently, it appeared that the United States Supreme Court was considering limiting the ability of federal prosecutors to bring charges following a state prosecution. The Court granted certiorari in the case of Gamble v. United States to determine whether the “dual sovereign doctrine” should apply. Unfortunately, the Court has now decided the Gamble case, and the Court voted 7-2 to uphold the concept of dual sovereignty which, for purposes of criminal law, allows both the federal government and a state government to prosecute a defendant for the exact same crime.

Following Gamble, the law remains such that a defendant cannot successfully claim a double jeopardy violation if he or she was acquitted or even convicted of a crime at the state level and the federal government subsequently decides to prosecute the case. This case drew a great deal of attention because of the benefit it could have provided to famous criminal defendant Paul Manafort, President Trump’s former campaign manager, who was convicted in federal court for various offenses. At the time of the decision, there was widespread speculation that President Trump could pardon Mr. Manafort for his federal crimes and he would then be able to move to dismiss pending charges brought by New York State. Because of Gamble, however, defendants like Mr. Manafort cannot be protected from a subsequent state prosecution by a federal pardon.

Pennsylvania Prosecutors Often May Not Bring Charges After A Federal Conviction or Acquittal

Pennsylvania law provides much stronger protections against being tried twice for the same conduct than federal law. A recent case from the Superior Court, Commonwealth v. Gross, illustrates the protections available to a defendant under Pennsylvania law when the defendant has already been tried in federal court. In Gross, the defendant was charged in Pennsylvania with conspiracy to commit unlawful possession of a firearm, firearms not to be carried without a license, possession of firearm prohibited, and lending or giving of firearms prohibited. While the charges were pending, Gross was indicted and pleaded guilty in the federal system for making false statements to a federal firearms licensee in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A).4. Specifically, the federal government alleged that Gross knowingly lied to a licensed firearms dealer about her current residence when completing ATF Form 4473 in connection with the purchase of a firearm by stating that she resided in Pennsylvania when she actually resided in New Jersey.

After Gross pleaded guilty in federal court, she moved to dismiss the Pennsylvania charges on double jeopardy grounds. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, and Gross appealed. In most cases, a criminal defendant may not appeal the denial of a pre-trial motion before the trial has taken place. However, double jeopardy motions provide a rare instance in which the defendant may take an interlocutory appeal following the denial of a pre-trial motion so long as the trial court does not find that the interlocutory appeal would be frivolous.

The Superior Court reversed the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds because Pennsylvania provides relatively strong protections against being retried for the same offense following a federal or out-of-state conviction or acquittal. The Superior Court noted that Section 111 of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code governs the issue and provides:

When conduct constitutes an offense within the concurrent jurisdiction of this Commonwealth and of the United States or another state, a prosecution in any such other jurisdiction is a bar to a subsequent prosecution in this Commonwealth under the following circumstances: (1) The first prosecution resulted in an acquittal or a conviction as defined in section 109 of this title (relating to when prosecution barred by former prosecution for the same offense) and the subsequent prosecution is based on the same conduct unless: (i) the offense of which the defendant was formerly convicted or acquitted and the offense for which he is subsequently prosecuted each requires proof of a fact not required by the other and the law defining each of such offenses is intended to prevent a substantially different harm or evil.

Pennsylvania May Not Prosecute if the State and Federal Statutes Were Intended to Prevent the Same Harm or Evil

In Gross, the trial court and Commonwealth agreed that Gross had been charged for the same conduct and that the first prosecution had resulted in a conviction. Further, the federal statutes and state statutes clearly had different elements which prosecutors would be required to prove. Therefore, the issue was whether the laws defining each of the offenses were intended to prevent a substantially different harm or evil.

The Superior Court took a fairly broad view in defining the harm or evil which the laws were meant to prevent. The Superior Court found that the purpose of the federal statute prohibiting false statements in connection with the purchase of a firearm was not limited to preventing fraud in connection with the purchase of a firearm from a licensed dealer. Instead, the statute also had the purpose of curbing crime by keeping firearms out of the hands of people who were not entitled to possess them. Thus, the purpose of the federal statute was not only to prevent fraud; it was also to reduce gun violence and violent crime in general.

Likewise, the purpose of the Pennsylvania statutes was to regulate the possession and distribution of firearms, which are highly dangerous and are frequently used in the commission of crimes. Therefore, the Superior Court found that both the federal and state statutes under which Gross was prosecuted were designed to vindicate substantially the same interests, i.e., the protection of the public by prohibiting the transfer of certain firearms to various categories of individuals. Because the Commonwealth failed to show that Pennsylvania had a substantially different interest, the Superior Court barred state prosecutors from bringing charges against Gross for the same conduct for which she had already been convicted in federal court.

Pennsylvania Provides Greater Double Jeopardy Protections Than Federal Law

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense — Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers Zak Goldstein and Demetra Mehta

As Gross illustrates, Pennsylvania law provides greater double jeopardy protections than federal law. Further, these critical distinctions between state and federal law show that criminal law is complicated and that there may be defenses in cases which a non-criminal lawyer could miss. If you are facing criminal charges, it is critical that you hire a criminal defense attorney who focuses his or her practice on criminal law and stays on top of new developments in the law. If you are facing criminal charges in Pennsylvania or New Jersey, call 267-225-2545 for a free 15-minute criminal defense strategy session with one of our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers.

Recent Criminal Defense Awards