Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog

Zak Goldstein 7/22/24 Zak Goldstein 7/22/24

PA Supreme Court: Defendant May Appeal Adverse Ruling on Motion in Limine Even Where Defendant Preemptively Introduces Damaging Evidence

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Raheem Stevenson, holding that a defendant may still appeal a trial court’s pre-trial ruling on the admissibility of a prior conviction even if the defendant preemptively introduces the harmful evidence during direct examination.

The Facts of Stevenson

The defendant and his co-defendant were arrested for an alleged armed robbery that took place in 2017. During trial, the Commonwealth moved in limine to introduce evidence that the defendant had a prior 2005 conviction for burglary. The defense objected, but the trial court found that the evidence was properly admissible.

The trial court issued its ruling prior to trial as part of a hearing on a motion in limine. A motion in limine allows the parties to get a ruling from the trial judge on the admissibility of certain evidence prior to the trial or prior to the testimony itself so that neither party has to be surprised by the eventual ruling when the issue comes up during the trial. This lets the parties know what evidence they may mention during opening statements and potentially avoid triggering a mistrial by introducing evidence that should not come in.

In order to mitigate against the potential impact of this prior conviction, the defense attorney asked the defendant about it when he testified on direct examination. When damaging evidence is going to come in no matter what, it is often strategic for the affected party to introduce it themselves and avoid looking like they were attempting to hide it. It may also give the party the opportunity to explain the circumstances or provide more detail where helpful. Here, the trial attorney objected to the admission of the evidence in advance. But when the trial court ruled that it would be admissible, the attorney decided it would be strategic to have his client testify about it rather than waiting for the Commonwealth to bring it up in cross-examination.

The Superior Court’s Ruling

The jury convicted the defendant, and the defendant appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. On appeal, the defendant raised the issue of whether the trial court improperly allowed the prosecution to introduce evidence of the prior burglary conviction. The Superior Court affirmed, but it did so because it found that the defense had waived the issue for appeal by introducing the evidence on direct examination. The Superior Court concluded that the defendant could not complain about evidence that he had introduced himself. The Superior Court relied primarily on the United States Supreme Court case of Ohler v. United States. There, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a defendant who introduces evidence preemptively cannot later claim it was admitted in error. That is still the rule in federal court.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court's decision, concluding that the rule in Ohler should not apply under Pennsylvania law. Under Pennsylvania law, the defendant may still raise the issue on appeal even if the defendant preemptively introduced the bad evidence where there was clearly a hearing on a motion in limine, the prosecution clearly made a request, the defendant clearly objected, and the trial court made an unequivocal ruling in favor of the prosecution prior to trial. Where the trial court’s ruling is unambiguous and the defense has definitely objected to the prosecution’s request, the defense may preemptively introduce the harmful evidence without waiving the issue for appeal.

In reaching this conclusion, the Court emphasized that under Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 103, a defendant preserves the right to appeal a ruling on evidence admissibility by making a motion in limine. The rule does not require the defendant to renew the objection during the trial once the court has made a definitive ruling.

The Court recognized that defense attorneys sometimes need to preemptively disclose potentially damaging evidence to mitigate its impact. This strategy is a legitimate trial tactic. Forcing defendants to forgo this tactic to preserve their right to appeal would be unfair and contrary to the principles of a fair trial.

The Court noted that while federal courts take a different approach under the Ohler case, many state Supreme Courts have rejected Ohler and adopted the reasoning of the dissent in that case. The dissent in Ohler argued that a defendant should not lose the right to appeal a ruling simply because they chose to introduce the evidence themselves after an adverse in limine ruling. The Court noted that Pennsylvania civil cases have upheld the right to appeal adverse rulings after preemptive disclosure. Thus, in federal court, a defendant must choose between trying to disarm the damaging evidence following an adverse ruling and preserving the issue for appeal, but in Pennsylvania state court, the defendant may preemptively introduce the evidence so long as the objection was clearly made in advance.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?

Criminal Defense Attorney Zak Goldstein — 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 and dismissals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, Violations of the Uniform Firearms Act, and First-Degree Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court, including the successful direct appeal of a first-degree murder conviction and the exoneration of a client who spent 33 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. 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 7/12/24 Zak Goldstein 7/12/24

Smith v. Arizona: United States Supreme Court Holds Expert May Not Testify to Absent Lab Analyst’s Testing Results if Analyst Unavailable

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Supreme Court of the United States has decided the case of Smith v. Arizona. In Smith, the Court held that when an expert conveys an absent lab analyst’s statements to support their opinion, and those statements must be true in order for the opinion to be accurate, the statements are admitted as evidence for their truth. If the statements are also testimonial, then their admission is barred by the Confrontation Clause. However, the Court did not decide whether the statements in this case were definitively testimonial, instead remanding that issue to the state court for further consideration.

The Facts in Smith v. Arizona

In December 2019, law enforcement officers in Yuma County, Arizona, arrested Jason Smith inside a shed during the execution of a search warrant. The officers discovered a large quantity of suspected drugs and drug-related items, leading to Smith being charged with multiple drug offenses, including possession of methamphetamine, marijuana, and cannabis for sale, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Smith pleaded not guilty, and the case proceeded to trial.

During trial preparations, the State sent the seized items to the Department of Public Safety's crime lab for analysis, identifying Smith as the suspect and providing details of his charges. Analyst Elizabeth Rast conducted the tests and documented her findings in detailed notes and a signed report. Her report concluded that the items contained usable quantities of methamphetamine, marijuana, and cannabis.

Initially, the State intended for Rast to testify at Smith’s trial. However, Rast left the lab before the trial for unspecified reasons. Instead, the State called Greggory Longoni as a substitute expert to testify based on Rast’s records, although Longoni did not conduct any independent testing. Longoni’s testimony, which relied on Rast’s records, led to Smith’s conviction.

Smith appealed, arguing that Longoni’s testimony violated his Confrontation Clause rights because he was unable to cross-examine Rast, whose statements formed the basis of Longoni’s opinion. The Arizona State Court of Appeals affirmed Smith’s conviction, reasoning that an expert could testify to the substance of a non-testifying expert’s analysis if it formed the basis of their opinion.

Supreme Court's Analysis

The Supreme Court rejected the Arizona Court of Appeals' reasoning, focusing on whether Rast’s statements were introduced for their truth. The Court stated that if Rast’s statements were used to establish that the events documented in her report actually occurred, then they were admitted for their truth. Furthermore, the Court assumed that since the testing and records were made for evidentiary purposes, Rast’s statements were testimonial.

The Court emphasized that if an expert’s testimony conveys an out-of-court statement to support their opinion, and the statement supports the opinion only if true, then the statement is admitted for its truth. The inability to cross-examine the analyst themselves on the reliability of the testing and the expert’s reliance on that underlying testing leaves the jury with an unchallenged assumption of truth and the defense with no opportunity to challenge that assumption. This is exactly what the Confrontation Clause forbids.

The Takeaway

This is an important decision. Under prior precedent, the prosecution had been able to use substitute experts to testify to what other expert witnesses did. That procedure, however, leaves the defense completely unable to challenge the credibility of the actual people who did the testing. This decision reinforces the defendant's right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against them, ensuring the integrity and fairness of the judicial process.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case?

Zak Goldstein 6/25/24 Zak Goldstein 6/25/24

Speedy Trial Motion Granted in Sexual Assault Case

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

Philadelphia criminal defense lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire recently won a speedy trial motion to dismiss all charges in a sexual assault case. In Commonwealth v. VK, the client was charged with rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and related charges after the complainant reported that the client had assaulted her years earlier. The complainant did not disclose the alleged abuse for about a decade.

The complainant made a police report, and a detective then obtained an arrest warrant and put the arrest warrant in the system. The detective then did essentially nothing to arrest the client. By then, he had moved to another state. The client was eventually arrested by police in the other state during a random encounter more than two years later and extradited to Philadelphia. Upon his arrival in Philadelphia, he retained Attorney Goldstein. Attorney Goldstein successfully argued for a reasonable bail at preliminary arraignment.

The charges were held for court at the preliminary hearing. Once the case reached the Court of Common Pleas and motions could be filed, Attorney Goldstein immediately filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 600(a) of the rules of criminal procedure. In the motion, Attorney Goldstein argued that the charges should be dismissed because the Commonwealth failed to bring the client to trial within 365 days as required by the rule.

Under the rules, the one year deadline for bringing a defendant to trial begins to run on the date on which the complaint is filed. Accordingly, the time during which a defendant has charges filed against them and a complaint pending counts for purposes of the rule unless the Commonwealth exercises due diligence in attempting to locate the defendant but is unable to do so. For example, if a defendant is being held in custody in another state and the other state refuses to extradite the defendant despite the Commonwealth’s attempts to obtain extradition, then the time might not count. Or, if the police conduct records checks and attempt to locate the defendant but are unable to do so despite giving it a good effort, then the time may not count.

Here, the detective who filed the charges testified at a hearing on the motion that he made a couple of phone calls to phone numbers he could not remember when he first filed the charges. He did not call authorities in the other state, he did not have anyone check the addresses in those states, he did not check social media, and he did not ask federal marshals to look for the defendant. Accordingly, Attorney Goldstein argued that the police and prosecutors had failed to exercise due diligence for more than a year from the filing of the complaint.

Ultimately, the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas judge agreed. The trial judge dismissed all of the charges, and the record can now be expunged. The appellate courts have increasingly enforced the speedy trial rules in Pennsylvania over the last few years. Filing criminal charges against someone is a serious thing, and the Commonwealth is not allowed to just leave cases sitting for years without taking real steps to move the cases forward. Here, the police did nothing to locate and extradite the client despite knowing where he was. This led to pending charges sitting against the client for years. That is exactly what Rule 600 prohibits. Accordingly, the judge dismissed the case.

What is Rule 600?

Rule 600 is Pennsylvania’s speedy trial rule. It applies to felony cases in Philadelphia. Municipal Court misdemeanor cases have a different rule (Rule 1013). Under Rule 600(a), the Commonwealth generally must bring the defendant to trial within 365 days of the filing of the complaint. There are lots of exceptions - defense continuances, continuances due to the court’s schedule, and continuances where the Commonwealth acted with due diligence but could not move forward due to circumstances outside of their control all may not count words the 365 days. But in general, if the case is delayed because the Commonwealth is not ready to proceed without a very good excuse, the time counts against the Commonwealth. Obtaining dismissal under the rule requires filing a written motion in the Court of Common Pleas.

Under Rule 600(b), a defendant in custody because they cannot afford bail may only be held for 180 days before they should be released on nominal bail (usually with house arrest). Again, there are exceptions for defense continuances, but they are more limited. Additionally, the Commonwealth usually responds to a 600(b) speedy trial bail motion by moving to revoke the defendant’s bail. In that case, the trial judge will have to make a determination as to whether the defendant is such a flight risk or danger to the community that bail should be revoked. In less serious cases, the defendant will almost always be released. In more serious cases such as shootings and rapes, this becomes a bigger issue.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has repeatedly instructed the trial courts to follow the rule and enforce it more reliably over the last few years, and courts have begun to do so. Here, the trial court followed the rule and dismissed the charges.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?

Philadelphia Criminal Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

Zak Goldstein 6/21/24 Zak Goldstein 6/21/24

PA Supreme Court: Speedy Trial Rule (Rule 600) Runs From Filing of Second Complaint When Commonwealth Acts Diligently

Criminal Defense Attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Womack, holding that the speedy trial rule (Pa.R.Crim.P. 600) runs from the filing of a second related complaint as long as the Commonwealth acted diligently in the prosecution of the case.

The Facts of Womack

On October 6, 2017, Pennsylvania State Trooper Andrew Corl led a search at Tyler and Bobbi Martin's home in Huntingdon County. The search uncovered a large sum of money, drugs, and stolen firearms linked to Marcus Womack. Womack was immediately arrested and charged with nine offenses, including possession with intent to deliver (PWID), conspiracy to commit PWID, and possession of a firearm by a person prohibited.

Following his arrest, further investigation revealed Womack's involvement in a larger drug trafficking operation extending to Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. This led to a second criminal complaint with additional charges based on new evidence.

The Office of the Attorney General (OAG) took over the case. It conducted a grand jury investigation and ultimately filed the second, more extensive complaint against Womack involving additional charges.

The Rule 600 Motion

Womack eventually moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the Commonwealth violated his rights by not bringing him to trial within 365 days as required by Rule 600. Womack argued that the time for speedy trial purposes should start on the date the Commonwealth filed the first complaint. The Commonwealth responded that the time did not begin to run until the filing of the second complaint because the Commonwealth acted with due diligence during the prosecution of the case. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that the second complaint was based on new evidence legitimately uncovered during the subsequent investigation. It did not stem from an attempt to violate Rule 600 or Womack’s speedy trial rights.

The Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, opining that the prosecution exercised due diligence in the period between the two complaints. The defendant appealed further, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court accepted the appeal. Ultimately, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania agreed, stating that the filing of the second complaint was necessitated by factors beyond the prosecution's control and that the grand jury investigation was a necessary and diligent step. In other words, the police properly arrested Womack when they conducted the initial search. They were not required to wait to bring charges while they investigated further. And once they arrested him, they realized that additional investigation was necessary, so it was not unreasonable for the Commonwealth to later file a second complaint once it uncovered additional evidence of criminal activity. As the Commonwealth never acted with the purpose of delaying trial and investigated the case in a diligent manner, the time ran from the filing of the second complaint, giving the Commonwealth more time to prosecute the defendant.

The key issue in these cases is due diligence. Where the prosecution acts with due diligence, the time runs from the second complaint and the prosecution will have more time to bring the defendant to trial. Where the prosecution acts without due diligence (such as in letting a case get dismissed because it failed to make sure that witnesses showed up for court), the time will run from the first complaint and a speedy trial motion may be successful. In this case, all of the courts involved found that the prosecution acted with due diligence. The prosecution's efforts to investigate further after the first complaint demonstrated due diligence. The grand jury process was crucial to uncovering the full extent of Womack's criminal activities. Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled that the timeline for Rule 600 starts from the filing of the second complaint if it arises from new evidence and the prosecution acts diligently.

These cases are generally fact specific. In this case, the prosecution did not really do anything unfair to intentionally or even negligently cause delays. The first arrest led to a broader investigation that uncovered evidence that supported additional charges, so it was not unreasonable for the Commonwealth to file a second complaint. The Commonwealth acted with due diligence, so it had the benefit of Rule 600’s deadline being calculated from the date the second complaint was filed rather than the first.