Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog
PA Superior Court: Warrantless Search of Car Requires Suppression of Gun in Illegal Firearm Possession Case
Commonwealth v. Camacho
Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire
The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently decided the case of Commonwealth v. Camacho, reversing the trial court’s order denying the defendant's motion to suppress an illegal gun which was found in his car during a warrantless search of the car. The case illustrates the strict requirements police must follow in order to conduct a warrantless search of a car in Pennsylvania following the Supreme Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Alexander.
The Facts of Camacho
On October 9, 2020, Pennsylvania State Police Troopers pulled over the defendant, Camacho, after observing him driving erratically in nearby Bucks County. Camacho pulled over on command. After the police stopped the car and approached it, the troopers noticed the smell of alcohol and marijuana. The defendant admitted he did not have a driver’s license. The troopers conducted a frisk of the defendant and found marijuana. The troopers also noticed an empty gun holster strapped to the defendant’s ankle. Naturally, they asked Camacho if he had a gun on him. He denied it. Despite Camacho's denial of having a firearm, the officers forcibly detained him after he briefly resisted. They forced him to the ground and handcuffed him.
With Camacho handcuffed and secured, the officers searched his vehicle without a warrant and found a loaded firearm under the driver's seat. The police formally arrested the defendant, and prosecutors charged him with:
Persons Not to Possess Firearms (VUFA § 6105)
Firearms Not to Be Carried Without a License (VUFA § 6106)
Resisting Arrest or Other Law Enforcement
Simple Assault
Recklessly Endangering Another Person
Possession of a Small Amount of Marijuana for Personal Use
Use or Possession of Drug Paraphernalia
Various Traffic Offenses
The Suppression Hearing and Trial
Prior to trial, the defendant moved to suppress the firearm, arguing that the warrantless search of his car violated his rights under the Pennsylvania Constitution. Federal law does not require the police to get a search warrant prior to searching a car, but the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that law enforcement officers must obtain a search warrant prior to searching a car unless an exception applies. In this case, the defendant argued that there were no “exigent circumstances” to justify the search because he and his passenger were restrained and in handcuffs at the time of the search.
The trial court denied the motion, agreeing with the Commonwealth that the presence of the empty holster and Camacho's earlier resistance justified the search. Camacho was convicted and sentenced to 4½ to 10 years in prison followed by a period of probation.
Superior Court Appeal
The defendant appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. On appeal, Camacho argued that the police did not have any exigent circumstances to justify the warrantless search of his car. The Pennsylvania Superior Court agreed and reversed the denial of the motion to suppress.
The Superior Court emphasized that under Pennsylvania law, a warrantless search of a vehicle is only permissible when both probable cause and exigent circumstances exist. In this case, while the officers had probable cause to suspect criminal activity, the Court found that the Commonwealth failed to show exigent circumstances to justify the failure to get a warrant.
The Superior Court's Reasoning:
At the time of the search, Camacho was handcuffed, lying on the ground, and surrounded by multiple officers.
His passenger, Ms. Clark, was also handcuffed and secured in the police vehicle.
The car was parked on the side of a wide shoulder, away from traffic, and posed no immediate threat to the public or officers.
The Court determined that, with both Camacho and his passenger fully restrained, there was no risk that either one of them could access the vehicle or destroy evidence.
Additionally, the Court noted that there were at least six officers present at the scene, and they had discussed towing the vehicle. This indicated that they had sufficient time and personnel to secure the car and obtain a warrant.
Based on these factors, the Superior Court found that the situation no longer posed an immediate danger to officer safety or a threat of evidence destruction, meaning there were no exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless search. As a result, the Court reversed the trial court’s ruling, vacated Camacho’s conviction, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Commonwealth will likely be unable to proceed with the case on remand.
The Takeaway
The Camacho case highlights the importance of challenging unlawful searches and seizures when the police search a car without a warrant. Even when the police believe they have probable cause, they must still obtain a search warrant or demonstrate that exigent circumstances justify an exception. This decision reinforces that without a valid justification, evidence obtained through warrantless searches should be suppressed.
Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?
Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire
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.
PA Superior Court: Evidence of Subsequent Shooting Too Prejudicial to Admit to Prove Consciousness of Guilt in Murder Case
Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire
The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Carter, holding that the trial court properly excluded evidence that the defendant shot someone else who was potentially involved in the murder with which he was charged. The Superior Court found that the trial court properly excluded the evidence because although it was relevant, its admission would have been too unfairly prejudicial to the defendant. At the same time, the Superior Court held that the trial court erred in precluding evidence that the defendant left Pennsylvania and went to Atlanta shortly after the murder.
The Facts of Carter
In 2021, the defendant and three others were drinking and hanging out in New Castle, PA. They spent some time at one of their girlfriend’s houses, and then they decided to drive to Pittsburgh. There had been an argument between the defendant and the victim prior to the trip to Pittsburgh, but it seemed like they had resolved the issue. Nonetheless, on the way to Pittsburgh, the defendant shot the victim three times, killing him. The group then fled the scene, and a different girlfriend picked them up. The defendant told her that he did the shooting. The next day, the defendant and one of the others flew from Philadelphia to Atlanta, Georgia. While in Atlanta, the defendant shot that man in the head while they were in an Uber, but the man survived that shooting.
The 404(b) “Other Bad Acts” Motion
The Commonwealth moved to introduce evidence of the Georgia shooting under Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 404(b), arguing it demonstrated the defendant’s consciousness of guilt, flight, and a common scheme or plan.
Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 404(b)(2) sometimes permits the admission of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts for purposes other than to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. Rule 404(b) provides:
(b) Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts.
(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.
(2) Permitted Uses. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident. In a criminal case this evidence is admissible only if the probative value of the evidence outweighs its potential for unfair prejudice.
(3) Notice in a Criminal Case. In a criminal case the prosecutor must provide reasonable written notice in advance of trial so that the defendant has a fair opportunity to meet it, or during trial if the court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown, of the specific nature, permitted use, and reasoning for the use of any such evidence the prosecutor intends to introduce at trial.
In this case, the Commonwealth argued the evidence should be admitted to show:
Consciousness of Guilt: Evidence of the defendant’s flight to Georgia could arguably be admitted to demonstrate his consciousness of guilt. Pennsylvania courts generally recognize that flight from the area can indicate a defendant's consciousness of guilt.
Res Gestae: Evidence of the Georgia shooting could be considered part of the res gestae (or complete story). That exception allows the admission of other acts that are part of the natural development of the facts and help to tell the complete story of the case.
Common Scheme, Plan, or Design: The similarities between the shootings of the decedent and the other man in Atlanta, both involving victims shot in the head in moving vehicles, could be found to establish a common scheme or plan.
Notably, Rule 404(b) only allows the admission of prior bad acts evidence “if the probative value of the evidence outweighs its potential for unfair prejudice.” This part was key to the defendant’s success in this appeal.
Although the evidence of the Georgia shooting was relevant under these exceptions, it was ultimately excluded by the trial court under Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 403 due to the risk of unfair prejudice outweighing its probative value. The Superior Court affirmed this exclusion for the Georgia shooting but allowed the evidence of flight to come in under Rule 404(b)(2).
The trial court held a hearing on the Commonwealth’s pre-trial motion in liming and excluded this evidence. The Commonwealth appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.
The Superior Court Appeal
The Superior Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Superior Court ruled that the trial court should have allowed the Commonwealth to introduce evidence that the defendant fled to Georgia as this flight would show consciousness of guilt, but it agreed that the evidence of the subsequent shooting was too unfairly prejudicial to admit in his Pennsylvania murder trial.
The Superior Court recognized that the shooting evidence was relevant. It agreed with the Commonwealth that the evidence of Carter shooting the other man who had been present for the first murder in Atlanta was relevant for proving consciousness of guilt and as part of the res gestae (or showing the complete story). The Court also found the similarities between the two shootings (both occurring in moving vehicles and targeting victims seated in the front passenger seats) justified admitting the evidence to establish a common scheme or plan.
At the same time, the Court recognized that relevance is not the only issue in terms of whether evidence of some other crime is admissible under Pa.R.Crim.P. 404(b). Instead, a court must also evaluate whether the unfair prejudice of admitting the other bad act outweighs the relevance that the evidence relating to the other crime may have. Here, the allegation that the defendant shot someone else in Atlanta was about as prejudicial as it could get, and it did not add a lot to the Commonwealth’s case in terms of proving that he committed the murder in Pennsylvania. Thus, despite the potential relevance of the Georgia shooting, the Superior Court upheld the trial court's decision to exclude it due to its potential to unfairly prejudice the jury against the defendant. The Court noted the risk of the jury convicting Carter on an improper basis rather than impartially weighing the evidence related to the decedent’s murder.
Accordingly, when the Commonwealth files a motion to admit evidence of some other crime or bad act, it is important for the defense attorney to argue not just that the evidence is not relevant, but also that even if it is relevant, the unfair prejudice of telling the jury the defendant committed another serious crime outweighs any relevance the other bad act may have.
Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?
Goldstein Mehta LLC Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers
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.
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?
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.
What is a preliminary hearing, and what happens afterwards?
The preliminary hearing is a critical first step in fighting the charges against you. We have had countless cases and charges thrown out at the preliminary hearing.
What to Expect at Your Preliminary Hearing in Pennsylvania
The Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers of Goldstein Mehta LLC represent clients who are facing all types of criminal charges in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Our defense attorneys have a proven track record of successfully defending our clients in thousands of criminal cases in countless jurisdictions. In Pennsylvania state court cases, our efforts on behalf of our clients often begin with the preliminary hearing.
This critical step in the process occurs after preliminary arraignment, and it is the first substantive hearing in a criminal case. We have successfully represented clients in thousands of these important hearings. In many cases, we have been able to have some or all of the charges dismissed at this initial stage in the proceedings. Even in matters where the case proceeds to the Court of Common Pleas, we are often able to use our cross examination skills to obtain testimony which will be useful in defending the case at later proceedings such as a motion to suppress or trial. This article explains both what happens at a preliminary hearing and what will happen if a case is "held for court" following testimony and argument.
If you are facing criminal charges, call 267-225-2545 to speak with one of our experienced and understanding Philadelphia, Pennsylvania criminal defense attorneys. We offer a free, 15-minute criminal defense strategy session.
What is a preliminary hearing?
The preliminary hearing is an extremely important step in the criminal justice process, and our criminal lawyers have successfully moved for dismissal of some or all of the charges in countless cases. In most cases, the “prelim” is the first opportunity for our criminal defense lawyers to challenge the evidence and charges against you. Although the hearing is a critical step in the process, it can also be frustrating and confusing for the defendant because the hearing differs significantly from the actual trial.
The proceedings sort of look like a trial, but they are different from the trial, and there are a number of important distinctions. A judge, prosecutor, defense attorney, court reporter, and court clerk are all likely to be there, making it look like a trial. However, despite the appearance of a criminal trial, it is not the same thing. Instead, the hearing (sometimes called a probable cause hearing) is a relatively brief court appearance in which a Philadelphia Municipal Court judge or suburban Magisterial District Justice, depending on the venue of the case, will usually hear from one or two of the main Commonwealth witnesses in order to determine whether the prosecution can successfully introduce enough evidence to show that the case should proceed to trial at the next level.
Just recently, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court re-affirmed the proposition that the Commonwealth generally must put on some live testimony and typically may not proceed on hearsay alone. The exact limitations on the admissibility of hearsay at a preliminary hearing are still subject to ongoing litigation, but it is clear that the Commonwealth must put on at least some real evidence in order to get a case to the Court of Common Pleas. More recently, in the case of Commonwealth v. Harris, the state Supreme Court affirmed a decision of the Superior Court holding that the Commonwealth must present competent evidence relating to the identification of the defendant at a preliminary hearing, as well. This is particularly true for preliminary hearings in Philadelphia. Even in the counties where prosecutors are more often allowed to use hearsay, the hearing still provides the defense with the opportunity to cross examine the lead detective or police officer in the case. Therefore, it is a critical step in the process because it provides the first chance for our defense attorneys to challenge the charges and evidence against you. The rules also require at least some witnesses to come to court and testify under oath.
The Burden of Proof at a Preliminary Hearing
The prosecutor or affiant (main police officer or assigned detective) must present enough evidence to prove a prima facie case for each charge. This standard requires the Assistant District Attorney to prove 1) that it is more likely than not that a crime was committed and 2) that the defendant committed it. The prosecutor will try to do this by calling witnesses and presenting evidence in much the same manner as the prosecutor would at trial. The defense lawyer then has the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. If the prosecution does not introduce enough evidence to prove a prima facie case for any given charge, then the defense may move for dismissal of that charge, and that charge should be dismissed by the judge. It is important to remember that the prima facie case standard does not require the Commonwealth to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, you should not assume that just because a case was held for court that you will be convicted at trial. There is a significant difference between a judge believing that the Commonwealth has established a prima facie case and a jury concluding that a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Is hearsay admissible at a preliminary hearing?
Although there is a right to cross examine prosecution witnesses and present defense witnesses at a prelim, the rules are very different. For example, the rules of evidence do not apply with the same force as they would at trial. The evidence rules are much more loosely enforced, and it is clear under Pennsylvania law that at least some hearsay is permitted at the hearing pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 542(E).
That rule provides:
Hearsay as provided by law shall be considered by the issuing authority in determining whether a prima facie case has been established. Hearsay evidence shall be sufficient to establish any element of an offense, including, but not limited to, those requiring proof of the ownership of, non-permitted use of, damage to, or value of property.
Although Rule 542 allows the Commonwealth to rely on some hearsay at a preliminary hearing, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that the Commonwealth may not prove the charges against a criminal defendant solely through the use of hearsay without violating a defendant's right to due process under the Pennsylvania Constitution. In recent years, the Superior Court, which is Pennsylvania’s intermediate appellate court, authored a number of opinions in cases such as Commonwealth v. Ricker and Commonwealth v. McClelland in which it allowed the Commonwealth to rely more heavily on hearsay than was previously allowed under Supreme Court precedent.
Those decisions, however, have been overruled as of July 21, 2020 by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. In McClelland, the Supreme Court re-established the previously long-standing rule that a defendant may not be held for court based on hearsay alone. The Supreme Court overruled both prior decisions of the Superior Court and found that a defendant has a due process right to a preliminary hearing which does not consist entirely of hearsay. This means that defendants now have increased protections at the preliminary hearing and an earlier opportunity to make a meaningful challenge to the case against them. The Supreme Court’s ruling is extremely important because of the reality that in serious cases or in cases where a defendant is on probation or parole, it is possible for that person to be held in custody for months or even years while awaiting trial. A meaningful preliminary hearing at which the Commonwealth is required to present actual witnesses is an important check on the ability of the government to detain people for extended periods of time without evidence.
The rules do, however, continue to allow some hearsay at the hearing. Generally, the amount of hearsay that the judge will permit the Commonwealth to introduce really depends on the judge. In some counties, many of the magistrates will let the Commonwealth proceed entirely or almost entirely on hearsay by allowing the assigned detective to testify to what the other witnesses told him or her. In Philadelphia, the judges typically require the prosecution to introduce live witness testimony from the complaining witness or actual eyewitnesses to the alleged crime. This split between the procedures in the counties and in Philadelphia will likely narrow due to the recent Supreme Court decisions in McClelland and Harris, but some differences will probably still remain.
Even in Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure clearly permit the prosecution to introduce ownership and non-permission testimony through the use of an "ONP Form" or through testimony from one of the investigating officers. For example, if the defendant is pulled over in a stolen car, the Commonwealth may proceed at the ensuing Receiving Stolen Property preliminary hearing by calling only the arresting officers to testify. The Commonwealth is not required to produce the owner of the car to testify that that person owned the car and did not give the defendant permission to drive it. This is a relatively limited exception to the rule against hearsay. At trial, the Commonwealth must still call the owner of the car to testify that the car was stolen.
Additionally, because of the relatively brief nature of the hearing and its limited scope, cross examination is much more limited than it would be at trial. For example, when it becomes clear that the defense is really seeking to establish the grounds for a motion to suppress, the judge will likely rein in the questioning because the motion to suppress cannot be litigated until later. Whether the police illegally stopped and searched the defendant is sometimes not relevant to whether the defendant committed a crime. Instead, that issue must typically be litigated at the motion to suppress hearing. However, in many cases, it is possible to ask some questions of the officers about the reasons for the stop which could be helpful for the motion if the case makes it to the Court of Common Pleas. The extent to which the judge will allow defense counsel to explore the reasons for the search or the stop varies from judge to judge.
Finally, the defense may not argue that the case should be dismissed because witnesses are lying unless the testimony is truly beyond belief. Credibility is not an issue at a preliminary hearing. Instead, the judge is instructed by law to accept the testimony of Commonwealth witnesses as true because the judge is simply evaluating whether there is enough evidence for the Commonwealth to proceed to trial. The judge is not permitted to make a credibility decision as to whether the witnesses are telling the truth or the Commonwealth will win at trial. Nonetheless, there are many defenses which can still be argued and may result in the dismissal of charges. Finally, in some cases in which a video directly contradicts an eyewitness, the judge may be willing to consider credibility arguments.
Ways to Get a Case Dismissed at the Preliminary Hearing
Criminal Defense Lawyer for Preliminary Hearings
Despite the fact that many of the differences between a preliminary hearing and a trial favor the prosecution, these hearings are still a critical stage in the criminal justice process for the defense. They provide defendants with substantially more rights and the opportunity to challenge the case at an earlier stage in the proceedings than the use of an indicting grand jury. Still, the defense may not argue that a witness is lying, but the defense may argue that the case should be dismissed for legal reasons. For example, a case could be dismissed or charges could be downgraded if the prosecutor fails to establish all of the elements of the statute in question.
In a case involving Possession with the Intent to Deliver charges, it could be possible to argue that the felony charge should be dismissed if the police failed to stop any alleged buyers because the Commonwealth will not be able to prove that the defendant was actually selling drugs. Likewise, in a circumstantial case in which there were no eyewitnesses to the crime, it may be possible to argue that there is simply not enough evidence that the police got the right guy and that the court should dismiss all of the charges. Thus, the prelim is a critical tool to challenge cases in which the prosecution has overcharged the defendant or in which the evidence is circumstantial and weak. This differs from cases in which prosecutors have used an indicting grand jury as the defendant often will not have the opportunity to challenge the charges until much closer to trial.
Finally, the defense has the right to present evidence or witnesses, but it is very uncommon for the defense to do so. It is usually better to wait and see what the evidence looks like before presenting potential defense witnesses. This is because the defense typically will not have access to the discovery until the case reaches the Court of Common Pleas.
Following the testimony, the defense attorney and prosecutor may make argument about whether the charges should be dismissed or whether the defendant should be held for court. It is very common for prosecutors to overcharge defendants, particularly in cases where the defendant has been arrested before. Therefore, we are often able to have some charges or even entire cases dismissed at this initial stage.
Bail Motions at the Preliminary Hearing
If the defendant has not been able to make bail, then our criminal defense attorneys may make a motion for a bail reduction. This motion may be made regardless of whether the case gets continued or the charges get held for court, and judges are often inclined to reduce bail when the Commonwealth requests a continuance. Other cases may also be dismissed at the preliminary level because witnesses fail to appear. In Philadelphia, the Commonwealth typically has three listings to get ready for the hearing. A judge will usually mark the case “must be tried” after a second listing if the Commonwealth was not ready twice in a row. If the Commonwealth is not ready after three listings, most judges will dismiss the case. If the court dismisses the case, then the defendant should be released the same day if there is nothing else holding them in custody. If the defendant has a probation detainer or other pending cases, then the defendant could be held until those matters are resolved. The Commonwealth may, however, re-file the case and proceed even after a case has been dismissed, and in some cases, the Commonwealth may obtain an arrest warrant for their witnesses so that the police can bring the witnesses to court by force. There are limits on the prosecution’s ability to endlessly re-file cases at this lower level, but it is clear that the Commonwealth can re-file at least once and sometimes twice.
How many times can the prosecution re-file charges in Pennsylvania?
Although the Commonwealth may re-file the charges following dismissal, the Commonwealth’s ability to re-file has limits. Pennsylvania appellate courts have held that where the charges are repeatedly dismissed by the magistrate or Municipal Court judge, the successive re-filing of the charges could eventually reach the point of illegal prosecutorial harassment. If the re-filing of the charges reaches the level of prosecutorial harassment, then the prosecutor’s decision could begin to impact the defendant’s right to due process. This type of due process violation can be used to move for the dismissal of the charges with prejudice - meaning the Commonwealth cannot re-file them. The prosecution would then be required to appeal the dismissal of the charges to the Pennsylvania Superior Court (or initially the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia), and the Superior Court would be responsible for determining whether prosecutors actually made out their case or whether the charges should be dismissed forever.
Success at the Preliminary Hearing Level
Although it may not seem like it at the time, some of the most successful hearings for the defense are hearings in which none of the charges are fully dismissed. This is because even if the charges do not get dismissed at the hearing, some of the main witnesses may have testified at the hearing and said things which can be extremely useful later in the process. For example, the police officer may testify to something which can be helpful at a later motion to suppress the physical evidence, or the complainant may say something wildly different from what the complainant said in a statement to detectives. Many of our winning motion to suppress and trial strategies are built through effective cross examination at the preliminary hearing even in cases where the charges are held for court. Further, even a slight change in gradation from an F1 felony to an F2 felony can make an enormous difference as the case proceeds as F1 felonies may carry significant mandatory minimum sentences that no longer exist for F2s. Therefore, the preliminary hearing is an extremely important step in the process.
What happens after the preliminary hearing?
If the judge who hears the case finds that the Commonwealth has met its burden, then the judge will hold the defendant for court. This does not mean that the defendant is taken into custody. It simply means that the Commonwealth has met the relatively low burden that it must meet and that the case may proceed to the Court of Common Pleas.
If you are held for court, the next step in the process is arraignment. In most counties and in Philadelphia, very little happens at arraignment, and most private lawyers will waive arraignment so that you do not have to appear. Formal arraignment is a hearing in which a judge or commissioner will advise the defendant of the charges that have survived the initial proceedings and ask the defendant how he or she pleads.
Assuming the defendant pleads not guilty, the case will then be listed for a pre-trial conference before a judge. In some jurisdictions like Northampton County, the arraignment is used as an informal pre-trial conference at which plea negotiations may occur or discovery may be exchanged. In these jurisdictions, the judge may also accept guilty pleas at the arraignment. But in the majority of counties, the arraignment is typically waived for a client who is free on bail and represented by private counsel. Following arraignment, the case will usually proceed to a pre-trial conference in which plea negotiations will be discussed and discovery exchanged. Once discovery is complete and any plea offers have been rejected, the case will be listed for trial. In Philadelphia, a trial before a judge could take place in roughly three to six months after the preliminary hearing. If the defendant wishes to proceed by way of jury trial, it may be a year or more before the case goes to trial. Homicide and non-fatal shooting cases and crimes involving sexual offenses tend to move more slowly than less serious cases.
Should I waive the preliminary hearing?
If you are charged with a crime, the preliminary hearing is a critical step in the proceedings against you. In Philadelphia, it is very uncommon to waive the hearing, and there is very little benefit in doing so. We will typically waive the hearing only when the defendant has already been approved for some sort of diversionary program such as ARD or treatment court. The Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office currently has a policy of not considering ARD applications until a case reaches the Court of Common Pleas, and so it usually does not make sense to waive it unless ARD is going to be a very close call and the defense wants to be able to argue that the defendant has been fully cooperative and remorseful.
In the suburban counties, it is much more common for the defendant to waive the preliminary hearing as the prosecutors and police officers often make offers to resolve the case or dismiss some of the charges in exchange for a waiver of the hearing. Once the hearing is waived, however, it becomes much more difficult to fight the case because a valuable opportunity to challenge the prosecution's evidence and cross examine witnesses under oath has been lost.
Further, if you waive the hearing in exchange for a reduction in the charges, the prosecution typically reserves the right to re-instate the withdrawn charges without a new hearing if you choose to go to trial instead of pleading guilty. Therefore, whether you should waive the hearing depends on the jurisdiction and the offer made by the government. It usually does not make sense to waive it unless there is some sort of firm offer on the table which the defendant wishes to accept or unless there is a requirement in that county that the hearing be waived in exchange for ARD consideration.
Each case is different, and whether you should waive any of your rights depends on the facts of your case. Generally, a waiver means that the case is headed for some kind of negotiated or open guilty plea or diversionary program. Alternatively, refusing to waive the hearing sends a message to the prosecution that the defendant plans on fighting the case. Both options have pros and cons which depend on the circumstances of the case and the evidence against the defendant. Therefore, whether you should waive your right to a hearing is an extremely important decision that should be made only with the advice of experienced criminal defense counsel.
Can I get my preliminary hearing back if I waived it?
It depends. In some cases in the suburban counties, it is possible to enter into a waiver at the magisterial district justice level but still reserve the right to litigate the issue of whether prosecutors can prove a prima facie case prior to trial. This would be accomplished by agreeing with the Commonwealth to a waiver of the hearing with the right to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Common Pleas Court. That would give the parties time to engage in negotiations, exchange discovery, and discuss the possibilities for resolving the case. If the case cannot be resolved, then the defendant may still file the petition for writ of habeas corpus, and the Common Pleas judge would then hold a habeas corpus hearing in much the same manner as would occur in the magisterial district court at the prelim. Click here to learn more about habeas corpus petitions.
Could I go to jail at the preliminary hearing?
Preliminary Hearing Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire
It is very unlikely that you would go to jail at the preliminary hearing if you have already been released on bail. The court's job is not to find the defendant guilty or not guilty. Instead, the judge's role is to determine whether there is enough evidence for the charges to proceed to the Court of Common Pleas for trial. Even if the Commonwealth presents enough evidence for the case to continue, there would not be a sentencing hearing because the defendant has not been found guilty. The only reason that a defendant would be taken into custody is if the prosecution were to move to have the defendant's bail increased or revoked. In that case, the Municipal Court judge or magistrate would hear arguments on bail and could increase bail or leave bail the same. If the judge increases bail, the defendant could be taken into custody until the new bail amount is paid. The defendant would then be released. It is relatively rare for this to happen, so it is unlikely that you would go to jail at the preliminary hearing even if the prosecution presents sufficient evidence.
Will I get sentenced at the preliminary hearing?
A criminal defendant will not receive a sentence or even a finding of guilt or innocence at the preliminary hearing. Instead, the purpose of the hearing is only to determine whether or not the Commonwealth can prove a prima facie case that the defendant committed the crimes charged such that the case should proceed to the trial level. Because the judge does not find the defendant guilty or not guilty, there is no sentencing proceeding that would follow the hearing. It is possible that the charges could be dismissed and the case could be over, but a defendant would never be found guilty or sentenced following the proceedings.
Does every criminal case in Pennsylvania get a preliminary hearing?
No, there are at least four situations in which you may not receive a preliminary hearing if you are charged with a crime in Pennsylvania.
First, if you are charged with a misdemeanor in Philadelphia Municipal Court, you will not get a preliminary hearing. Instead, the case will go right to trial in front of a Municipal Court Judge. If you lose the trial and wish to appeal, however, you may file for a trial de novo, and the trial transcript will then be treated similarly to a preliminary hearing transcript.
Second, in Philadelphia, the Commonwealth occasionally proceeds by way of indicting grand jury instead of providing a defendant with a preliminary hearing. In cases where the Commonwealth files a motion alleging that it is concerned about witness intimidation, the Commonwealth may proceed by presenting the evidence in secret to a panel of grand jurors. The grand jurors will then vote on whether to indict the defendant.
Third, in cases involving lengthy investigations conducted by investigating grand juries, the Commonwealth may file a motion to bypass the preliminary hearing under certain circumstances and attempt to use the grand jury’s presentment instead of providing the defendant with a preliminary hearing. This motion is often subject to challenge by the defense. The options for challenging the use of an indicting grand jury, however, are limited. A defendant in that situation, however, may still file a motion to quash in Philadelphia.
Finally, defendants in summary citation cases are not entitled to a preliminary hearing. Instead, the case will go right to trial before a magistrate or Municipal Court judge. Like defendants found guilty in Philadelphia Municipal Court cases, a defendant who has been found guilty of a summary has the right to a de novo appeal to the Court of Common Pleas.
Therefore, most defendants who are charged with a crime in Pennsylvania receive a preliminary hearing, but there are some cases which will not involve one.
The Philadelphia Criminal Lawyers of Goldstein Mehta LLC Can Help
Our Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers offer a 15-minute, complimentary criminal defense strategy session. We know that picking up the phone and calling an attorney can be intimidating, so in this video, I explain what you can expect when you call us. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with one of our criminal defense lawyers.
If you have an upcoming preliminary hearing, you need representation from one of our experienced criminal defense lawyers immediately. We have successfully moved for the dismissal of entire cases and some of the most serious charges on countless occasions. We also use this initial hearing to begin building a defense to the charges by getting the witnesses on the record. And in other cases, we have successfully been able to work out the case for a favorable resolution for the defendant. If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation, call 267-225-2545 for a free 15-minute criminal defense strategy session.
Related Articles: Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justices Can't Agree On Admissibility of Hearsay At Preliminary Hearing
