Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog

Zak Goldstein 11/28/19 Zak Goldstein 11/28/19

What happens at arraignment in Philadelphia?

There are two types of arraignment hearings in Philadelphia state court. The first occurs shortly after the defendant is arrested and is called a preliminary arraignment. The second, called formal arraignment, occurs shortly after the preliminary hearing if the defendant has been held for court on a felony charge or directly before trial where the defendant is going to trial in the Municipal Court on misdemeanor charges.

What is an arraignment?

The two types of procedures are very different because the preliminary arraignment is an important step in the process during which the defendant will have bail set by a magistrate or trial commissioner. The amount of bail that the defendant has to pay to be released is extremely important because if the defendant cannot afford to pay bail, then the defendant will be held in custody until either the case is resolved or a judge reduces the bail at a subsequent hearing. Unlike preliminary arraignment, very little happens at formal arraignment. Instead, the defendant is simply advised of the charges against him or her and given the opportunity to plead not guilty. Where the defendant is not in custody, we will typically waive the hearing so that the defendant does not have to make an extra trip to court. Thus, at both types of hearings, the defendant will be advised of the charges and given the opportunity to plead not guilty, but at preliminary arraignment, the defendant will have bail set by a magistrate. This makes the preliminary proceeding much more important.

What happens at the Preliminary Arraignment?

The first type of arraignment that occurs after a defendant has been charged with a crime in Philadelphia is the preliminary arraignment. This hearing takes place in the basement of the Criminal Justice Center. Once the defendant has been arrested, the defendant will typically be held at the police station for 10-20 hours while they are processed by the police. During that 10-20 hour period, the police will prepare reports, court officers will investigate the defendant’s background, call a family member to verify the defendant’s address, and make a bail recommendation, and the District Attorney’s Office will decide on the final charges that the defendant will face.

Once police and court officials complete that process, a trial commissioner will hold a hearing to advise the defendant of the charges and set bail. Unfortunately, there is no way to avoid being held for 10-20 hours during this processing period. However, in general, if you have an outstanding arrest warrant, we find that the best day to turn yourself in for a quick processing is on Tuesday mornings. In some cases, we have been able to have clients processed and seen by a magistrate in around six hours where they turn themselves in first thing on Tuesday morning.

Do I need a lawyer for Preliminary Arraignment?

Yes. The hearing takes place in the basement of the Criminal Justice Center roughly 10-20 hours after a defendant has been arrested. The trial commissioner, defense counsel if counsel has been retained, a public defender intern, and a District Attorney’s Office intern are all physically present in the building. The defendant participates in the hearing by video from the police station where the defendant is still being held. The commissioner will then read the charges to the defendant, provide the defendant with date of the first court hearing, and then accept argument from the prosecution and the defense as to what bail should be required before the defendant can be released.

Under the current system, the prosecution is generally asking for little or no bail for many non-violent crimes and misdemeanors, but bail can be very high for violent crimes, defendants with lengthy prior records, and certain felony offenses. Therefore, it is important, when possible, that you retain an attorney prior to turning yourself in so that you can have an attorney present for the bail hearing and get the lowest possible bail.

What happens after the Preliminary Arraignment?

If the defendant quickly makes bail (which can be paid online with a credit or debit card, in the courthouse, or at the prison), then the defendant will be released with a subpoena to return for a court date. If the defendant cannot make bail, then the defendant will be transported to the Curran-Fromhold Correctional Facility and detained until the defendant either makes bail, bail gets reduced, or the case gets resolved. This process is the preliminary arraignment, and it is an important part of the criminal justice process. Either way, in a felony case, the accused will receive a subpoena for a preliminary hearing court date.

What is Formal Arraignment?

Arraignment is a much less important part of the criminal justice process than the preliminary version. In Philadelphia, it generally takes place only in a felony case. When a defendant is charged with a felony in Philadelphia, the first court hearing after the preliminary arraignment is a preliminary hearing which takes place in front of a Municipal Court judge. At that hearing, the Municipal Court judge must determine whether there is enough evidence that the case should go forward to the Court of Common Pleas on felony charges, be remanded to the Municipal Court on misdemeanor charges, or be dismissed altogether. Assuming the prosecution introduces enough evidence that a felony occurred and the defendant committed the felony to send the case to the Court of Common Pleas, the court date after the preliminary hearing will be the formal arraignment.

Very little, if anything, actually happens at this hearing. If the defendant has retained a private criminal defense attorney, that attorney can waive the hearing so that the defendant will not have to appear. The public defender will not usually waive the hearing for a defendant. The defendant will then simply receive a new court date for a Pre-Trial Conference (SMART Room listing) at which the prosecution will make a plea offer and provide the defense with discovery such as the police reports, witness statements, videos, and other things of that nature. If the defendant is in custody due to a probation detainer or because the defendant does not make bail, then the defendant will not even be brought to the arraignment and will simply receive a new court date. If the defendant does not retain counsel and has a public defender, then the defendant will typically have to appear for the arraignment.

The trial commissioner will advise the defendant of the charges that have survived the preliminary hearing, the defense attorney will enter a not guilty plea on behalf of the defendant, and the parties will discuss whether there is any discovery that has been passed or whether discovery remains outstanding. The defendant will then receive a subpoena for the next court date, which will be the previously-discusssed Pre-Trial Conference (“SMART room” in Philadelphia).

In a misdemeanor case, the accused technically has the right to be arraigned by a Municipal Court judge directly before the trial takes place. This typically does not provide any benefit to the accused, so the defense will usually waive the reading of the charges in a misdemeanor case in order to expedite things as the charges have been provided in the complaint in advance.

The differences between the two hearings

The bottom line is that the preliminary arraignment takes place right at the beginning of the case and is an extremely important hearing. It is a crucial hearing in which the defense attorney can fight for low bail so that the client is not held in custody pending the resolution of the charges. The formal arraignment, however, is relatively insignificant and can typically be waived so that the defendant does not have to miss work or incur the cost in terms of time and lost wages of attending court for a date on which very little will happen.

What happens in the rest of the state?

in the rest of the state, less serious criminal cases are often initiated by police sending the defendant a summons in the mail directing the defendant to appear in court for a preliminary arraignment, to get fingerprinted, and to schedule a preliminary hearing. Philadelphia police do not do this; instead, they almost always simply arrest someone. In the rest of the state, once a defendant has received a summons, he or she can retain an attorney and make arrangements with the assigned detective to schedule the first hearing in the case where bail will be set and a preliminary hearing will be scheduled. This makes it much easier for a defendant to have a lawyer present for the hearing as the arrest is less likely to happen by surprise.

What happens at arraignment in New Jersey or Federal Court?

New Jersey and the Federal court system also have arraignment proceedings which are somewhat different. In both of those systems, arraignment occurs after a defendant has been indicted by a grand jury because those systems do not have preliminary hearings in the way that Pennsylvania does. Once a grand jury returns an indictment, the defendant goes before the assigned judge for the arraignment and is advised of the charges and typically enters a plea of not guilty. The judge will then set a schedule for the filing of pre-trial motions and exchange of discovery.

Are you facing criminal charges? We can help.

If you are facing criminal charges or may be under investigation by law enforcement, we can help. Our Philadelphia criminal defense attorneys have successfully defended thousands of clients in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We offer a free 15 minute criminal defense strategy session to each potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding criminal defense lawyer today.

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.