Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog
Defense Attorney Zak Goldstein Selected to 2018 PA Super Lawyers Rising Stars
Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esq.
Criminal Defense Attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esq. Selected to 2018 PA Super Lawyers Rising Stars
Zak T. Goldstein, Esq., Criminal Defense Attorney at Goldstein Mehta LLC, has been named to the 2018 Pennsylvania Rising Stars list. This is an exclusive list, recognizing no more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state.
Super Lawyers, part of Thomson Reuters, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process, which results in a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys.
The Super Lawyers and Rising Stars lists are published nationwide in Super Lawyers Magazines and in leading city and regional magazines and newspapers across the country. Super Lawyers Magazines also feature editorial profiles of attorneys who embody excellence in their practice of law. For more information about Super Lawyers, go to SuperLawyers.com.
Goldstein Mehta LLC Defense Attorneys Obtain Successful Outcomes in Robbery, PWID, Gun, and Assault Cases
Criminal defense attorneys Demetra Mehta and Zak Goldstein continue to obtain successful results in and out of the courtroom. In the last few months, our defense attorneys have won cases involving drug charges, gun charges, assault allegations, and juvenile robbery charges. If you are facing criminal charges, call 267-225-2545 for a complimentary criminal defense strategy session with one of our award-winning defense attorneys. Some examples of our recent not guilty verdicts and successful motions to suppress include:
Commonwealth v. T.C. - Motion to Suppress Granted in Drug Delivery Case
Criminal Lawyer Demetra Mehta
Attorney Mehta focuses on getting the best results for her clients. In the case of Commonwealth v. T.C., she successfully moved for the suppression of 13 grams of crack cocaine. Attorney Mehta also beat the accompanying DUI charge. In this case, the government alleged Attorney Mehta's client was driving while intoxicated. The arresting police officer claimed that he pulled T.C. over because the head lights of T.C.'s vehicle were not on at night. But Attorney Mehta knew better. She recognized that this was a late-model car, and she quickly obtained proof that the car's headlights actually turn on automatically at night. Through skillful cross-examination, she was able to demonstrate this key fact to the trial judge during the motion to suppress. This led to not only the eventual suppression of the large quantity of drugs in the car but also all observations of her client, meaning the government could not proceed on the DUI charges, either. With the motion to suppress granted, prosecutors were forced to withdraw all charges. T.C. now faces no criminal record from this arrest!
Commonwealth v. G.R. – Not Guilty in Self-Defense Assault Case
G.R., the assistant manager of a local market, was charged with Simple Assault in Philadelphia for allegedly getting into a fight with a co-worker at work. Prosecutors alleged that G.R. punched a co-worker in the throat, fracturing his larynx, after the co-worker engaged in a verbal altercation with G.R. relating to work responsibilities. Although a broken bone can often lead to Aggravated Assault charges, prosecutors moved only to prosecute G.R. in the Philadelphia Municipal Court on the Simple Assault charge. Despite the fact that G.R. was charged only with misdemeanors, the stakes were high for G.R. because G.R. stood to lose his job in the event of a conviction relating to an assault of someone at work.
Attorney Goldstein defended G.R. and obtained a full acquittal in a trial before the Municipal Court Judge. Attorney Goldstein established that G.R. acted in self-defense by cross-examining the complainant on the size difference between the two men, the discrepancies, contradictions, and omissions in the complainant’s statement, and the complainant’s lack of medical records to show that he had actually sustained the injuries that he claimed.
Attorney Goldstein established that the complainant, a much bigger man, got in G.R.’s face, pushed him repeatedly, and made a movement consistent with lining up to throw a punch before G.R. ever responded with force. A background check of the complainant also revealed that he had prior convictions for conspiracy to commit homicide as a juvenile and simple assault as an adult. Mr. Goldstein successfully moved for the admission of those convictions into evidence in order to show that the complainant was actually the initial aggressor. Mr. Goldstein then called G.R. to the stand to testify that he had acted in self-defense and believed that the complainant was about to throw a punch. The judge rejected the complainant’s inconsistent testimony and promptly acquitted G.R. on self-defense grounds.
Commonwealth v. J.L. – Motion to Suppress Granted in Case Involving Drugs, Guns, and Cash
Our criminal defense lawyers recently won a motion to suppress of physical evidence in a case involving drug charges and gun charges in the Philadelphia Municipal Court. J.L. was pulled over by police one night as the passenger in a vehicle. Police claimed that the vehicle smelled like marijuana and that J.L. made furtive movements as they approached the car. Police also claimed that J.L. seemed very nervous and lacked identification when the police spoke with him.
Police decided to remove him from the car and frisk him based on these observations. The officer claimed to feel a pill bottle. Believing that the pill bottle would likely contain contraband, the officer then went into J.L.’s pockets, removed the pill bottle, and found crack cocaine in the bottle. The officer also claimed that J.L. had a large amount of cash in his pocket. Officers then searched the rest of the car and found more drugs and a gun in the trunk.
Prosecutors initially charged J.L. and the driver of the car with possession both of the drugs allegedly found in J.L.'s pocket as well as the larger quantity of drugs and guns in the trunk. Prosecutors listed the case for a preliminary hearing on the felony charges, and J.L. retained the criminal defense attorneys of Goldstein Mehta LLC for the preliminary hearing. Our attorneys were able to convince the prosecutor that they could not prove that J.L. constructively possessed the items in the trunk, including the larger quantity of drugs and the gun, because J.L. did not own the car and had never been seen accessing the trunk. Prosecutors agreed, withdrew the felony charges, and remanded the case to the Philadelphia Municipal Court only on the charges of possessing the crack cocaine in the pill bottle.
When the case was listed for trial, Attorney Goldstein moved to suppress the crack cocaine. In general, when police pull a car over in Pennsylvania, they may remove a passenger from the vehicle without any level of reasonable suspicion. However, in order to conduct a Terry frisk of the occupant of a car, the police must have reasonable suspicion both that the suspect is engaged in criminal activity and that the suspect is likely to be armed and dangerous. This means that police must be able to provide an articulable belief, consisting of real reasons, for why the officer believed that criminal activity was afoot and that the defendant was likely to have a weapon.
Here, the officer testified that he believed the defendant was likely concealing weapons or contraband in the car due to his furtive movements, nervousness, lack of identification, and the odor of marijuana in the car. He therefore decided to conduct a frisk. The officer failed to realize, however, that a Terry frisk is limited only to a cursory pat down for weapons. When an officer feels something that is plainly contraband during a frisk, the officer may then conduct a full search and remove the object for further inspection even when the officer does not believe the object is a weapon. But the officer must be immediately able to tell that the item in question is contraband. The officer cannot conduct a full search of a defendant’s pockets and the containers therein solely because the officer feels some kind of object and doesn’t know what it is or may contain.
After the officer testified that he could immediately tell that the item in question was a pill bottle, Attorney Goldstein provided the Court with Pennsylvania Supreme Court case law in which the Court held that a pill bottle cannot automatically be considered contraband. In most cases, it is perfectly legal to possess a pill bottle, and most pill bottles are not used to transport contraband. Accordingly, it is not immediately apparent that a pill bottle contains contraband. Based on this Supreme Court case, Attorney Goldstein successfully argued that the officer exceeded the scope of a lawful Terry frisk and that the pills should be suppressed. The judge agreed and granted the motion. The Commonwealth elected not to appeal and withdrew the charges.
Commonwealth v. W.D. – ARD Obtained in Possession with the Intent to Deliver Marijuana Case
W.D. was charged with selling a significant amount of marijuana from a car. Philadelphia Police conducted a narcotics surveillance targeting a block known for high drug activity. During the course of that surveillance, they were able to successfully have a confidential informant purchase drugs in a house on that block. Based on those controlled buys, police obtained a search warrant for the house and returned to execute the warrant. While they were preparing to execute the warrant, police allegedly observed W.D. selling marijuana to dozens of buyers from a car parked up the block. When police went to execute the search warrant, they also searched W.D. and the car in which he was sitting and found a quantity of marijuana and a large amount of money. Accordingly, police charged W.D. with Possession with the Intent to Deliver.
Fortunately, W.D. had no prior criminal record and was enrolled in college. Our defense attorneys worked with W.D. to put together a strong application for ARD on his behalf. We obtained proof of employment, college enrollment, and character letters from family members and friends. Using this mitigation packet, we were able to convince prosecutors to offer entry into the ARD program for the felony Possession with the Intent to Deliver charges. Prosecutors almost never offer ARD for PWID, but in this case, W.D. will have to complete a short period of probation, community service, and pay a small fine. Once those requirements have been completed, the charges will be dismissed and W.D. can have the entire case expunged with no admission or finding of guilt.
In Re: J.G. – Not Guilty Verdict Obtained in Juvenile Robbery Case
Criminal Defense Attorney Zak Goldstein
Attorney Goldstein successfully obtained a full acquittal in a juvenile delinquency Robbery case. In this case, J.G. was charged with strong-arm robbery and related theft charges for allegedly trying to steal the complainant’s cell phone. Prosecutors claimed that J.G. and a group of other juveniles had surrounded the complainant, held him down, and gone into his pockets, taking cash and trying to take a cell phone.
J.G. insisted on his innocence and our defense lawyers took the case to trial in Philadelphia Family Court. By cross-examining the arresting officer on the inconsistencies between the description of the robbers given by the complainant and the clothing that J.G. was actually wearing when arrested, and pointing out that J.G. had neither the complainant’s cell phone or money when arrested, Attorney Goldstein successfully convinced the Family Court judge that police had arrested the wrong person. Accordingly, the judge found J.G. Not Guilty of Robbery and all other charges. J.G. will continue to have no criminal record and may have all of the charges expunged.
FACING CRIMINAL CHARGES OR CONSIDERING AN APPEAL? WE CAN HELP.
If you are facing criminal charges or deciding whether to appeal a conviction or sentencing, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients in jurisdictions throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We can also provide advice on the merits of pursuing an appeal or post-conviction relief act petition. We offer a free 15-minute criminal defense strategy session to each potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding criminal defense attorney today.
Attorney Goldstein Selected to List of Three Best Rated Criminal Defense Lawyers in Philadelphia, PA
Attorney Goldstein was recently selected by Three Best Rated to their list of the Three Best Rated Criminal Defense Lawyers in Philadelphia, PA.
From the website:
Three Best Rated® was created with a simple goal to find you the top 3 local businesses, professionals, restaurants and health care providers in your city. We display only businesses that are verified by our employees since customers deserve only the best.
That's not all... Businesses do not pay us to list them ever. You do not pay us for the listing any time. We believe that local businesses provide better and personal services locally. Local businesses know your city better since they live there too. Our policy is free to list because if you can pay to list, then is it really the best business?
NOT GUILTY: Criminal Defense Attorney Zak Goldstein Wins Attempted Murder Jury Trial in Philadelphia
Recent Case Results
Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esq.
In the past month, Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers Zak T. Goldstein, Esq. and Demetra Mehta, Esq. have continued to win outstanding results in the court room. This week, in the case of Commonwealth v. L.W., Attorney Goldstein obtained a full acquittal for L.W. in a case involving Attempted Murder charges. After deliberating for only five hours, the Philadelphia jury of twelve citizens returned an acquittal for L.W. on all charges.
L.W. was charged with Attempted Murder, Aggravated Assault, and illegal possession of a firearm for allegedly shooting the complainant in the head at a block party in Southwest Philadelphia. Prosecutors alleged that L.W. shot the complainant, but the bullet did not penetrate his skull. The complainant jumped up, ran to a nearby police car, and was transported to the hospital. The complainant consistently denied that the defendant had shot him, but shortly after the complainant arrived at the hospital, the complainant’s family members began to tell police that two of them had witnessed the incident. Two of his family members told detectives that they were standing with the complainant at the party when the defendant got mad, pulled a gun, and shot the complainant in the head. A third family member also testified that despite denying it to the police, the complainant told her that the defendant was the shooter. Finally, police detectives testified that when they attempted to arrest the defendant a few days later, he fled from a traffic stop and evaded arrest. They also tried to insist that the complainant was uncooperative and that they believed he was lying to them.
On paper, the case looked extremely difficult for L.W.. The Commonwealth claimed that two eyewitnesses implicated the defendant in the shooting and that a third witness would prove the complainant lied to police about not knowing who shot him. But once the jury was empaneled and the witnesses were under oath and subject to Attorney Goldstein’s withering cross examination, it became clear to the jury that the witnesses were lying. Attorney Goldstein got the witnesses to admit that they fabricated their original statements and had not in fact seen the shooting. The Commonwealth argued that the witnesses were recanting due to the no snitch culture in Philadelphia, but throughout the trial, Attorney Goldstein’s excellent presentation and grasp of the facts demonstrated to the jury that they were just untrustworthy witnesses.
After the Commonwealth saw the credibility of its witnesses destroyed by Attorney Goldstein, prosecutors tried to tip the scales by having multiple police detectives testify to their belief that the defendant was the shooter. Undeterred, Attorney Goldstein was able to highlight to the jury that the detectives based their entire case on hearsay from unreliable witnesses and failed to do any additional investigation. After Attorney Goldstein showed the jury that the Commonwealth had no physical evidence, biased and untrustworthy witnesses with a vendetta against his client, and that they had uncovered no evidence of any motive whatsoever, the jury fully acquitted L.W. of Attempted Murder, Aggravated Assault, and the related gun charges.
Commonwealth v. Z.S. – PCRA Results in Immediate Parole Eligibility for Man Originally Facing Illegal 30-Year-Sentence
We previously wrote about a PCRA Petition which successfully obtained a new Violation of Probation sentencing for client Z.S. Z.S. initially pleaded guilty to Possession with the Intent to Deliver (“PWID”) of a small amount of heroin. Pursuant to the initial guilty plea, Z.S. was sentenced to a short county sentence followed by probation. Z.S. violated the probation when he was convicted of a robbery, and he was sentenced to 7.5 – 20 years for the robbery. When Z.S. appeared for his violation of probation sentencing, the probation judge gave him an unfair sentence of 15-30 years in state prison consecutive to the initial 7.5 – 20 years. In most circumstances, judges have almost unlimited discretion in imposing a new sentence for a violation of probation. However, judges may not consider illegal factors when imposing a sentence.
In this case, the sentencing judge stated on the record that he found the defendant’s expression of remorse to be hollow because the defendant had refused to participate in the violation of probation sentencing by video. Instead, the defendant insisted on being present for this critical hearing. All defendants have a constitutional right to be present in court for sentencing hearings. Therefore, our defense attorneys were able to argue in a Post-Conviction Relief Act Petition that the judge violated Z.S.’s rights by explicitly punishing Z.S. for refusing to participate in the hearing by video and wanting to be present.
After the original VOP judge retired, a new judge was assigned to hear the PCRA Petition. The PCRA judge agreed with our attorneys and vacated the sentence. However, at the new sentencing hearing, the judge had the same authority to impose any type of sentence he saw fit. The judge could have re-sentenced the defendant to the same 15-30 year sentence or reduced the sentence to something substantially less. Due to the persuasive arguments of counsel and the compelling testimony from the defendant and his family members, the judge instead imposed a sentence of 3.5 – 7 years, which the defendant has already served. Accordingly, the defendant will become immediately eligible for parole instead of having to serve another 10 years before reaching parole eligibility.
Commonwealth v. R.P. – Burglary Charges Dismissed at Preliminary Hearing Due to Excessive Hearsay
We have written about the recent updates in Pennsylvania law surrounding the use of hearsay at preliminary hearings. Until recently, the rules have traditionally been that some hearsay is permitted, but preliminary hearings cannot be based entirely on hearsay evidence. In general, ownership and non-permission testimony, which is an element of any theft crime, can typically be shown through the use of hearsay. This allows the Commonwealth to proceed with a preliminary hearing based only on the testimony of a police officer in many theft cases. For example, where a defendant was pulled over in a stolen car, the police officer can testify to pulling the defendant over, and the Commonwealth can then introduce either hearsay testimony through a detective or an ownership and non-permission form (“ONP form”) identifying the owner of the vehicle and stating that the defendant did not have permission to drive the vehicle.
In recent cases, the Superior Court has adopted a permissive attitude towards hearsay and allowed cases to proceed to the Court of Common Pleas based on hearsay alone. The Supreme Court has not yet intervened, dismissing the appeal in Commonwealth v. Ricker as improvidently granted. However, the Supreme Court did recently decide to review this issue again in the case of Commonwealth v. McClelland. The Court has not yet ruled in that case. Nonetheless, many judges and magistrates, particularly in Philadelphia, will not allow the Commonwealth to proceed at a preliminary hearing with only hearsay testimony.
In this case, R.P. was charged with Burglary and related theft charges after police pulled him over as he exited a property that was being renovated. The officer stopped R.P. and his passenger, and the officer testified that he was able to see copper piping in the back of the car that R.P. was driving. The officer testified that R.P. told him that he had been scrapping and that the property from which R.P. exited was often the target of burglary attempts and that it was not well secured. The Commonwealth then introduced an ownership and non permission form stating that R.P. did not have permission to enter the property.
On cross-examination, Attorney Goldstein successfully showed that the officer did not know whether the copper piping actually came from inside the property. The officer had not inspected the premises to see if he could determine from where the pipe had been cut. Further, because the property had been repeatedly burglarized, including earlier that day, the damage to the back door could not be linked to R.P. Accordingly, with no evidence that the piping actually came from that property or that R.P. had actually entered the property, the Philadelphia Municipal Court judge dismissed all of the charges at the end of the preliminary hearing. The judge found that the evidence was insufficient and that any indication on the ONP form that R.P. had entered the property was excessive hearsay. This was particularly because the ONP form was not properly signed by the witness.
Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help.
Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Attorneys
The Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers of Goldstein Mehta LLC will fight for your rights at trial or on appeal. Our attorneys have successfully defended thousands of cases in Philadelphia and the surrounding counties, and we can help with all types of state and federal charges in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding criminal defense attorney today.