What are the penalties for possessing a gun as part of a federal drug trafficking offense?

Federal Gun Charges Lawyer Zak Goldstein

Guns and Drugs in Pennsylvania and New Jersey Federal Courts

Federal law imposes severe penalties on the possession of a firearm during a federal drug trafficking offense. Specifically, Section 924(c) requires a federal judge to impose certain consecutive mandatory minimum sentences where a defendant:

A) uses or carries a firearm;

I) during and in relation to any crime of violence which may be prosecuted in a court of the United States; or

ii) during a drug trafficking offense which may be prosecuted in a court of the United States; or

B) possesses a firearm in furtherance of such offense.

This means that there are three ways that a defendant can be prosecuted for having a gun while selling drugs. The defendant can be prosecuted for 1) the use of the weapon during the crime, 2) carrying the weapon while committing the crime, or 3) possessing a firearm in furtherance of the underlying crime.

In order to show that a defendant used a gun during a drug trafficking offense, prosecutors must show the active employment of the firearm. This generally means actually using the gun in the common sense of the word - firing it, attempting to fire it, displaying it, brandishing it, or striking someone with it. Simply having a gun nearby for protection is unlikely to qualify as the use of the firearm.

It is often easier for the prosecution to prove that someone “carried” a firearm during a federal drug trafficking offense than that the person used it. For example, carry has often been interpreted as being synonymous with possessed, and there are two types of possession. First, there is actual possession in which a defendant physically has a gun on his person such as in a pocket. Second, there is a constructive possession. Constructive possession is a doctrine which means simply that the person has dominion and control over the gun. This allows for a prosecution even where the defendant does not physically have the gun on them such as where a gun is hidden somewhere in a car. Constructive possession is harder to prove because prosecutors are not always able to show that the defendant actually knew about or controlled the gun.

Finally, prosecutors can show that a gun was used in furtherance of a specified crime by showing that the gun was possessed, either actually or constructively, during and in relation to a gun crime. This generally means that “the defendant intended the weapon to be available for use during the drug transaction, that the defendant availed himself of the weapon and that the weapon played an integral role in the drug offense.” Thus, this is a higher bar to prove than possession or simply use.

What is a drug trafficking crime that would trigger the mandatory minimum?

Federal law also provides the definition for a drug trafficking crime. Under 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c), a drug trafficking crime is:

[A]ny felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 801, et seq. ), the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. § 951, et seq. (importation, transshipment of controlled substances), or chapter 705 of titl e 46. [46 U.S.C. App. §1901, et seq. (manufacture, distribution or possession with intent of controlled substances on board vessels)].”

Whether a specific offense qualifies as drug trafficking crime is sometimes the subject of litigation, but this mandatory minimum generally applies to the sale of drugs while possessing a firearm.

It is important to note that a defendant could also face vicarious liability, meaning that if a co-defendant or co-conspirator used a gun as part of a drug trafficking offense, the defendant could be on the hook for the co-defendant’s mandatory minimum if the defendant knew or it was reasonably foreseeable that the co-conspirator would have a gun.

What is the federal mandatory minimum for possessing a gun while selling drugs?

The mandatory minimums for possessing a gun while selling drugs can be staggering in federal court. For example, a first offense carries a mandatory minimum of five years consecutive to any other sentence. If the firearm was brandished, then the mandatory minimum increases to seven years. If the firearm was fired or was an illegal shotgun or rifle, then the mandatory minimum becomes ten years. Finally, if the gun was a machine gun or a destructive device like a bomb, then the mandatory minimum is thirty years.

The penalties become even more severe for a second or subsequent offense. For a second offense, the mandatory minimum becomes 25-years or life for a machine gun or bomb. If a death results from the use of the gun, then the penalties can be even worse.

It is important to note that these mandatory minimums are only the minimum sentence that a federal just must impose following a conviction and that the judge can actually impose more time than the mandatory minimum. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which handles appeals arising from federal cases in Philadelphia and New Jersey, has ruled that although the statute does not explicitly reference a maximum potential sentence, a violation of 924(c) can actually be punished by a maximum sentence of life in prison.

What are the defenses to charges of possessing a gun while committing a drug trafficking offense?

Fortunately, there are defenses to these serious charges. As with many possessory offenses, the defenses could include:

• Motions to Suppress. If the police or federal agents did something illegal during the investigation of the case, it may be possible to have the drugs or guns and the charges dismissed. For example, if agents raided a home without a search warrant and found the gun which was allegedly used as part of the offense, it could be possible to have the gun suppressed, which would eliminate the prosecutor’s ability to bring the gun charges. Likewise, if police conducted an illegal interrogation by failing to provide Miranda warnings, it could be possible to have a defendant’s inculpatory statement suppressed.

• Challenging Possession. In many gun cases, it may be possible to challenge whether the defendant actually possessed the gun. This could be through challenging the credibility of the agents or officers on cross-examination where they claim that the gun was actually on the defendant or by showing that the defendant did not actually know about or have control of a firearm in a case involving constructive possession allegations.

• Challenging Drug Trafficking. As the statute makes clear, the mandatory minimum only applies where there is some relationship between the firearm and gun trafficking. Even if prosecutors in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania can prove that the defendant possessed the gun, it may be possible to challenge the allegations that the defendant was engaged in drug trafficking. This would be a defense to the gun charges as well because the gun charges are dependent on the drug trafficking charges.

These are just a sample of potential defenses for a gun and drug case, and there may be other defenses which apply in your case. Further, in some cases, prosecutors may have strong evidence, and it may be possible to negotiate a better deal for the client so that the client can avoid these extreme mandatory minimum sentences. Our experienced federal gun charges lawyers have the experience and expertise to fight your case and help you obtain the best possible result.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Gun Charges Defense Attorneys in Philadelphia, PA

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.

Can My Probation Officer Search My House Without a Warrant?

Probation Searches in Pennsylvania

Can A Probation Officer Search My House While I Am On Probation or Parole? 

An issue that frequently comes up when litigating motions to suppress in drug and weapons cases is whether the police or probation department need a search warrant to search the house of a someone who is on probation or parole. In general, both the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions require law enforcement officers to get a search warrant before conducting a search of a private residence. However, there are a few limited exceptions to this rule, and two of those exceptions apply to people who are on probation or parole.

Probation Officers May Conduct Limited Home Visits

First, a probation or parole officer may conduct a limited home visit of a probationer’s home without a warrant as part of the conditions of probation or parole. The probationer may be lawfully compelled to show the probation officer around the house, and if the officer sees anything incriminating in plain view, these items can be used against the probationer. Evidence such as drugs, guns, or other contraband may be used to establish violations of the terms of the supervision or to bring new criminal charges.

Probation Officers Do Not Need A Search Warrant - But They Do Need Reasonable Suspicion

Second, the probation officer may conduct a full search of a probationer’s house where the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that there may be contraband in the house. Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause, and the officer is not first required to obtain a warrant before conducting the search. Instead, the officer must simply get authorization from a supervisor. Although probation officers may use these exceptions either to conduct a home visit or search based on reasonable suspicion, they are not allowed to act as a “stalking horse” for or at the direction of the police department or other law enforcement agencies who wish to use the probation as a pretext to conduct a warrantless search.

For both types of searches, probation officers may typically search the entire house. The search is not limited to the room in which the probationer stays. This is because the owner of the house will generally sign a release prior to the probationer or parolee being allowed to stay in the house. In some cases, however, it may be possible to challenge the scope of an overly broad search with respect to a defendant other than the probationer. 

Recent Caselaw on Probation and Parole Searches in Pennsylvania

The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently considered these exceptions in the case of Commonwealth v. Parker, 2016 Pa Super 280 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016). In Parker, the Superior Court upheld the ability for probation officers to search a probationer’s home without any prior allegation of wrongdoing by the probationer, reversing the trial court’s order granting a motion to suppress crack cocaine which was allegedly found in Mr. Parker’s home.

When Parker was released from custody on a prior case, he agreed to the standard terms and conditions of probation to which many defendants must agree in counties through Pennsylvania. Specifically, he agreed to allow his probation officer to visit his home at any time to confirm compliance with the conditions of supervision. He also agreed that he would not possess any contraband and that he would permit the officer to search his home and vehicle based upon reasonable suspicion that contraband could be found.

The case began when probation officers arrived at Parker’s home to conduct a home visit. Upon entering the house, they noticed, “apparently in plain view, clear, empty, corner-cut baggies; cigar packages, which were opened and discarded on the floor; and small rubber bands.” The officers believed from past experiences that such items are commonly used for drug distribution, and they also observed a shotgun in an open closet in the kitchen. The officers then went up to Parker’s room, where they found bullets, knives, and a bong all in plain view. The probation officers contacted police officers. The police officers came to the scene, but they opted not to obtain a warrant and left. The probation officers then contacted a supervisor, who authorized a search of the home, and the probation officers proceeded to find cocaine in the refrigerator. At that point, the officers called the police back to Parker’s home, and the police arrested Parker.

Grounds for the Motion to Suppress the Results of the Probation Search

Parker moved to suppress all the items, arguing that the probation officers conducted an illegal search by entering his home without reasonable suspicion and that they should have obtained a warrant before searching the refrigerator. Parker also alleged that the probation officers had used their authority to evade the warrant requirement and act as a “stalking horse” for the local police department. Parker’s attorneys suggested that the police wanted to conduct a search but did not have the probable cause necessary for a warrant.

The trial court rejected the argument that the probation officers could not enter the home to conduct a basic tour and observe any contraband in plain view, but the trial court ruled that the officers should have obtained a search warrant before searching the refrigerator. Because the officers had already called the police to the scene, they did, in effect, act as agents of the police department, and therefore, they should have obtained a warrant before finding the cocaine in the refrigerator.

Standards for Probation Searches

The Superior Court reversed the suppression of the cocaine and reaffirmed the prior decisions which set these standards. The Superior Court concluded that first, under existing caselaw, probation officers may lawfully conduct a home visit, tour the house, and seize any evidence of contraband which is in plain view. Second, once the probation officers find drug packaging, weapons, and bullets which have been left out in the open, the officers do not have to obtain a warrant to search the rest of the house because they have reasonable suspicion that other contraband might be found. Third, the court rejected the trial court’s conclusion that the probation department had acted as a stalking horse for the police department because there was no evidence at the motion to suppress that the police had in any way directed the search. Accordingly, the court ruled that the full search of the house was permitted despite the absence of a warrant.

There Are Limits on Probation and Parole Officers

Although the Superior Court ultimately ruled against Mr. Parker, the decision does show that even though defendants who are on probation at the time of a search have fewer rights than people who are not on probation, there are still real limits on the ability of a probation officer to search a house. First, the probation officer is limited to walking through the house and viewing only items which are in plain view. The officer cannot show up for a home visit and begin tearing the house apart. Second, the officer must have reasonable suspicion in order to conduct a full search without a warrant. This standard requires the officer to point to specific and articulable facts for why the officer believed contraband might be found. The officer cannot conduct a search for drugs simply because the defendant was under supervision for drugs.

Can the Police Search My House If I Am On Probation? 

Although probation officers do not need a warrant to search the house of a probationer or parolee, the police cannot use the probation department to evade the warrant requirement and engage in a warrantless search. Unless the evidence is first uncovered by probation officers because it was in plain view during a home visit or because the officers had legitimate reasonable suspicion, police officers must still obtain a search warrant prior to searching the home of someone who is on probation. When the police or probation department violate these rules, the evidence could be excluded following a successful motion to suppress. This rule is called the “stalking horse doctrine.”

Our Philadelphia Probation Lawyers Can Help With Probation Violation Hearings

Zak T. Goldstein, Esq. - Philadelphia Probation Violation Lawyer

Different standards apply to probationers, but law enforcement must still follow the law. If you or someone you know are facing narcotics or weapons charges for drugs or other contraband found in your house, car, or on or near your person, you need the advice of a skilled criminal defense lawyer immediately. Critical exculpatory evidence and witnesses could be lost due to delay, and there may very well be defenses ranging from a motion to suppress due to an illegal search to a lack of evidence of constructive or actual possession. We have even won motions to suppress significant quantities of drugs and guns due to illegal parole searches. Contact the Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers of Goldstein Mehta LLC at 267-225-2545 for a free, confidential, and honest case evaluation.

Can the Police Search My Car?

Can the Police Search Your Car? 

If the police searched your car and uncovered illegal contraband in Pennsylvania or New Jersey, you should speak with one of our Philadelphia criminal lawyers today. Our defense attorneys have won many motions to suppress and constructive possession trials in cases involving guns, drugs, and other illegally seized evidence. We will fight for your constitutional rights and to ensure that illegally seized items are not introduced into evidence against you. Call 267-225-2545 for a complimentary criminal defense strategy session with one of our top-rated Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers.

Do Police Need a Search Warrant to Search a Car? 

The legality of car searches by the police is frequently at issue in cases involving possessory offenses such as firearms cases and drug possession cases. In general, if the police conduct an illegal search or seizure, then the evidence obtained as a result of the illegal conduct could be suppressed. In many cases, the suppression of the critical evidence could lead to the dismissal of charges. However, the police typically have more authority for when they can search your car than for when they can search a house.

The general rule under the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions is that law enforcement officers need a search warrant to conduct a search. However, the courts have created so many exceptions to this general rule that the rule essentially only applies to searches of houses or other types of residences and more recently, cell phones. Unsurprisingly, there are a number of exceptions which could permit a police search of a vehicle without a search warrant depending on the facts of the case.

Consent to Search the Vehicle

First, the police can always conduct a search when they have the consent of the owner or operator of the vehicle. If the police pull over a vehicle for a traffic infraction and are suspicious of the driver for some reason, they can always ask the driver for permission to search the car. If the driver gives them permission, then they may search the car and can use anything that they find as evidence in court. The only challenges which could be brought via a Motion to Suppress in this instance would be to the legality of the initial stop and whether the driver actually gave consent or whether the consent was fabricated or coerced.

Therefore, our advice is that you should not give permission or consent should the police ask if they can search your car. However, if the police decide to conduct a search anyway, you should not attempt to resist. Instead, it is best to remain calm while they conduct the search and speak with an attorney about your legal options once the encounter has ended.

Police Usually Need Probable Cause to Conduct a Car Search

Second, courts have developed an “automobile exception” to the warrant requirement. Under the United States Constitution, police officers and federal agents typically do not need a warrant to conduct a search of a vehicle. Instead, because of the inherent mobility of an automobile, they may search the vehicle if they have probable cause to do so. Probable cause means that it is more likely than not that the police will find contraband or some evidence of a crime. Thus, if police have probable cause, they do not have to obtain a warrant or consent prior to conduct a search.

An example would be a situation in which police pull a suspect over for swerving and upon approach, the officers believe the driver to be under the influence of alcohol. While questioning the driver, one of the officers smells alcohol coming from inside the actual vehicle. In that case, a prosecutor would argue that police have probable cause to enter the vehicle and determine the source of the odor because it was more likely than not that police might find spilled alcohol or a beer can which would be evidence in the subsequent DUI case against the driver.

Until recently, Pennsylvania took a more limited approach to the automobile exception. Previously, in order to evade the warrant requirement, prosecutors were required to show both that the police had probable cause to search a vehicle and that some sort of exigent circumstances applied, meaning that evidence could be lost should the police be required to obtain a warrant. However, in Commonwealth v. Gary, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court abolished the exigent circumstances requirement and adopted the federal automobile exception, meaning that police can now search a vehicle whenever they have probable cause to do so.

Although Gary is the law today, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently agreed to review whether Gary is correctly decided or whether law enforcement officers should have to obtain a search warrant prior to searching a car absent exigent or unusual circumstances. Therefore, it is possible that the current court could reinstate the rule that police must obtain a warrant prior to searching a car if they want the evidence to be admissible in Pennsylvania state court.

Other Exceptions Which Allow Law Enforcement to Search a Car

Third, there are a number of other potential scenarios in which the police can search a car without a warrant. For example, if the police end up arresting the driver of the car, then there are some circumstances in which the police may conduct a search of the car as a “search incident to arrest.” However, in Arizona v. Gant, the United States Supreme Court held that police may only conduct this type of search incident to arrest of a car when the police reasonably believe that they are likely to find evidence of the offense of arrest. This means that officers cannot automatically search a car as a search incident to an arrest for a suspended registration or suspended driver’s license. Instead, police must have some reason to believe they are going to find more evidence of the crime for which they arrested the driver in the vehicle.

Additionally, the police may, in some occasions, conduct an inventory search of a car if they are required to tow it after arresting or citing the driver. However, recent case law has substantially limited the authority of the police to conduct an inventory search of a car (commonly called a LIVESTOP in Philadelphia), and some of these inventory searches are now subject to challenge with a motion to suppress.

Police Can Sometimes Frisk A Car

Finally, police may also conduct a limited search of a vehicle if they have reasonable suspicion that the driver or passenger was engaged in criminal activity and that he or she was armed an dangerous. In that situation, the Terry doctrine allows them to conduct a “frisk” of the areas which were accessible to the driver to ensure that the driver will not have access to weapons if he or she is allowed to return to the vehicle. Of course, if the police find contraband or are able to see contraband while conducting the frisk, then they may enter the vehicle to retrieve the contraband and use it as evidence in a criminal prosecution under the plain view or plain feel doctrines.

There are other exceptions to these general rules and other issues which frequently come up such as K9 searches and the duration of time during which the police may detain a vehicle an conduct an investigation pursuant to a traffic stop. However, those issues will be the subject of future articles.

How A Philadelphia Criminal Lawyer Can Help

Clearly, there are a lot of exceptions which allow the police to search a car without a warrant, and we are likely at a point where the exceptions have begun to swallow the rule. This means that the answer to the question, “Can the police search my car?” is unfortunately that it depends on the circumstances. It is clear that police are not required to obtain a search warrant to search a car during a traffic stop. Instead, they are typically going to be required to make some sort of showing of either probable cause or reasonable suspicion in order to justify a search, and these searches are often subject to challenge with a motion to suppress.

If it can be shown that the initial stop was illegal, or that the police did not have actual reason to believe that they would find contraband in the car, it may be possible to have the evidence suppressed and excluded at trial. Likewise, if the police claim that the defendant consented to the search but the defendant and witnesses in the car disagree, it may be possible to prove that the consent was fabricated or coerced. Each case is different, and despite the elimination of the warrant requirement for vehicle searches, there are still real limits on the ability of the police to search a car. The bottom line is that illegally seized evidence usually cannot be used against you in court, and in many cases, it remains possible to challenge the warrantless search of an automobile. 

If the police searched your car and found something illegal in Pennsylvania or New jersey, you need the services of one of our Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers. We have won countless motions to suppress and trials on gun and drug charges. We will fight to protect your rights and make sure that illegally seized evidence is not used against you. Call 267-225-2545 for a complimentary criminal defense strategy session with one of our top-rated Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers.

PA Superior Court: Trial Court Properly Permitted Commonwealth to Inform Jury Confidential Informant Had Died

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein

The Pennsylvania Superior Court decided the case of Commonwealth v. Caulk. The court held that the trial court properly permitted the Commonwealth to explain that the confidential informant in the case had died so that the jury would not question why the confidential informant did not testify. The defendant had objected to the introduction of this evidence because defense counsel believed that the jury would likely suspect that the defendant had been involved in the informant’s death.  

Commonwealth v. Caulk 

On March 21, 2016 and April 20, 2016, Pennsylvania State Troopers Bromberg and Garcia conducted controlled drug purchases from the defendant through a confidential informant. Before the first controlled buy on March 21, 2016, Trooper Bromberg thoroughly searched the informant and his vehicle to make sure there were no secret compartments in the vehicle where he could hide weapons, contraband, or money. Trooper Bromberg gave the informant $4,800 in United States currency, which he instructed the informant to purchase 125 grams of cocaine from the defendant. The informant also had a recording device in his pocket. 

The controlled buy took place on Lindbergh Boulevard in Philadelphia. A Jeep with Connecticut license plates pulled behind the informant’s car, and Trooper Bromberg, watching from nearby, recognized the defendant exiting the driver’s side of the Jeep. The defendant entered the passenger’s side of the informant’s vehicle and met with the informant for about one minute before returning to the Jeep. Nobody else approached or was inside the informant’s vehicle. The recording device in the informant’s pocket recorded his conversation with the defendant. The defendant and the informant’s voices could be heard on the recording. 

Following the transaction, the informant drove to a pre-arranged location where he met with the troopers. He made no stops and had no contact with anyone else between the controlled drug buy and the post-buy meeting with the troopers. The troopers had the informant under surveillance during the entire trip. At the pre-arranged location, troopers searched the defendant and found a large plastic bag containing cocaine that the informant purchased with the $4,800. The Pennsylvania State Police crime lab determined that the bag contained 124.5 grams of cocaine. 

Before the second controlled buy on April 20, 2016, Trooper Bromberg searched the informant’s vehicle to ensure that there were no drugs, contraband, weapons or money on the informant’s person or in his vehicle. Troopers gave the informant another $4,800 with pre-recorded serial numbers. The informant again possessed a recording device. At the last minute, the location of the controlled drug buy changed from Lindbergh Boulevard in Philadelphia to Fifth and Welsh Street in Chester, Pa. The Drug Enforcement Agency performed aerial surveillance in addition to the troopers’ ground surveillance. This entire transaction was videotaped. The video showed the defendant driving a white Mitsubishi and was waiting at the new location for the informant. The informant exited his vehicle and entered the defendant’s vehicle and they drove around and then returned to the new meetup location. Although the conversation was recorded and there was ambient noise, there was no conversation, no phone calls, and no mention of cocaine distribution. 

At the conclusion of the meeting, the defendant drove away but was arrested by a Chester police officer. The informant drove away in his vehicle directly to a meeting with the troopers, who recovered a bag containing 124.64 grams of cocaine that the informant purchased with the pre-recorded currency. There was no other money, drugs, or contraband found on the informant’s person or in his vehicle. 

The defendant was subsequently charged with two counts of Possession with the Intent to Deliver (hereinafter “PWID”). Prior to trial the Commonwealth sought a continuance which was granted. Shortly after this, the informant was murdered. The defendant filed a motion in limine to preclude any reference to the informant’s death. The trial court denied his motion. During the trial, Trooper Broomberg testified that the informant could not testify because he was deceased. The Commonwealth did not present any evidence concerning the cause of his death. Additionally, the Commonwealth played the various tape recordings and video that was generated during the troopers’ surveillances. 

The defendant also testified on his own behalf and denied selling drugs to the informant. Additionally, his attorney argued that the Commonwealth’s case failed without the testimony of the informant. The jury disagreed and the defendant was found guilty of two counts of PWID and sentenced to 100-240 months of imprisonment. The defendant then filed a timely appeal. On appeal, the defendant raised several issues. Only the issue of whether the trial court improperly denied his motion in limine will be addressed in this article. 

What is a Motion in Limine? 

A motion in limine is a motion that either the defense attorney or prosecutor can file before trial to keep out or introduce certain evidence. Usually, these are only done when a defendant elects to have a jury trial, but they may also be used in bench trials. Defense attorneys will frequently file these before trials because they not only want to keep out harmful evidence, but also they want to know what evidence will actually be presented to the jury. Additionally, defense attorneys file motions in limine to avoid objecting to specific evidence in front of the jury. The reason this is significant is because a defense attorney may not want to give the impression that they are trying to hide something from the jury. As such, this is usually a strategic decision by the defense. 

The Superior Court’s Decision 

The Superior Court denied the defendant’s appeal. The Superior Court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the defendant’s motion in limine concerning the informant’s death. The reason was because the trial court did not allow the Commonwealth to introduce the cause of his death and thus the defendant’s argument that he was prejudiced was not supported by the record. Additionally, the Superior Court found that the jury could have blamed the Commonwealth for the informant’s absence and this would have unfairly prejudiced the Commonwealth. Because the Superior Court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and the Superior Court did not grant any of the defendant’s other arguments, he will not get a new trial and will be forced to serve his sentence.   

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.