Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog

Zak Goldstein 9/24/21 Zak Goldstein 9/24/21

Attorney Goldstein Wins PA Superior Court Appeal of Motion to Suppress Gun

Philadelphia Criminal Defense attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire, recently won a Superior Court appeal in the case of Commonwealth. v. T.G. In T.G., prosecutors had charged the defendant with possession of a firearm by a prohibited person (VUFA 6105), possession of a concealed firearm without a permit (VUFA 6106), and possession of a firearm on the streets of Philadelphia (VUFA 6108). T.G. had retained a different firm for his motion to suppress and trial. The trial court denied T.G.’s motion to suppress the gun, and a jury eventually convicted him. He was sentenced to 8-16 years’ incarceration.

T.G. retained Attorney Goldstein for his appeal to the Superior Court. On appeal, Attorney Goldstein challenged the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress, the trial court’s decision to remove family members from the courtroom during jury selection, and the trial court’s refusal to properly instruct that it could consider questions regarding the credibility of the officers with respect the reasons for searching T.G.’s car when considering whether they believed the officers that T.G. in fact possessed a gun.

At the motion to suppress, the officer had testified as follows:

On November 23, 2017, a little after 1:00 a.m., Officer Alvarez was in a marked police car on routine patrol in the Germantown area of Philadelphia. Officer Alvarez was driving with his partner Officer William Benson in the passenger seat. At the time, Officer Alvarez had been a police officer for five years with four of those years assigned to the 14th District, which included Germantown. Since he began working in the district, Officer Alvarez estimated he has made about 15 to 20 arrests involving narcotics and firearms being found together.
Near the intersection of Germantown Avenue and Berkley Street, Officer Alvarez saw a 2011 Chevy Camaro traveling southbound on Germantown Avenue. T.G. was driving the Chevy Camaro and had a passenger with him in the front. Noticing that the Chevy Camaro had dark window tinting, Officer Alvarez began to follow the car for several blocks. Although the car did not swerve, speed or make any sudden stops, Officer Alvarez pulled the car over because of the possible violation under 75 Pa.C.S. § 4524.1. When he saw the officer’s lights, T.G. immediately pulled the Chevy Camaro, which was registered in his name, to the side of the road.
Officer Alvarez walked up to the driver’s side window and asked Griffin to lower his window; Officer Alvarez later testified that he could not see into the car because of the tint. After T.G. lowered his window, Officer Alvarez asked for his license, registration and insurance. As T.G. looked for the information, Officer Alvarez smelled an odor of burnt marijuana coming from inside the car, describing it as a “mediocre” smell but not overwhelming. Though he had no specialized training in identifying marijuana, Officer Alvarez was familiar with its odor through his experience as a police officer. Despite smelling marijuana, however, Officer Alvarez did not see any narcotics or paraphernalia inside T.G.’s car.
Besides the odor of marijuana, Officer Alvarez also noticed that T.G. appeared “very nervous” as he was looking for his information. According to Officer Alvarez, T.G. was breathing heavily and his hands were shaking. At the suppression hearing, though, Officer Alvarez admitted that T.G. did not have bloodshot eyes or dilated pupils.
After T.G. found his information in the glove compartment, Officer Alvarez asked him to exit the car. T.G. complied and got out. Officer Alvarez asked him if there was anything illegal in the car or if either he or his passenger had a permit to carry a firearm. T.G. responded that there was nothing illegal in the car and that his passenger had a permit to carry. Because T.G. was wearing a large puffy jacket, Officer Alvarez patted him down for weapons. Feeling none, Officer Alvarez put T.G. in the back of his patrol car without handcuffs.
Officer Alvarez then returned to the Chevy Camaro to conduct a warrantless search for narcotics based on the odor of marijuana. Although he did not find any narcotics, Officer Alvarez found a Ruger 9mm handgun under the driver’s seat. After finding the handgun, Officer Alvarez went back to his patrol car to check if T.G. had a license to carry. As he did this, Officer Alvarez heard T.G. moving around in the back. This prompted Officer Alvarez to put handcuffs on T.G. When Officer Alvarez tried to do so, T.G. pushed him away and took off running but was soon captured. T.G. was charged with persons not to possess, receiving stolen property, firearms not to be carried without a license, carrying firearms in Philadelphia and resisting arrest.

While the appeal was pending, Pennsylvania appellate courts decided the cases of Commonwealth v. Barr and Commonwealth v. Alexander. In Barr, the Pennsylvania Superior Court concluded that the odor of marijuana alone does not automatically justify the warrantless search of a car. Similarly, in Commonwealth v. Alexander, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court determined that absent exigent circumstances, police must obtain a search warrant prior to searching a motor vehicle. Given this change in the law, Attorney Goldstein filed a reply brief arguing that Barr was now controlling in this case and that the motion should have been granted because the odor of marijuana did not give the police the right to search the car.

The Superior Court agreed and remanded the case to the trial court. The Superior Court instructed the trial court to reconsider its ruling on the motion to suppress in light of Barr and Alexander. The trial court was instructed to determine if the police had any legitimate basis other than the odor of marijuana for searching the car and also to decide whether Alexander, which requires a search warrant, applies retroactively. If Alexander applied retroactively, then the trial court was also directed to evaluate whether police had the exigent circumstances necessary for searching the vehicle without a warrant.

Following the remand, Attorney Goldstein successfully convinced the trial court to reconsider its original ruling and grant the motion to suppress the gun. The Commonwealth argued that although the odor of marijuana alone does not provide the probable cause for a search, the marijuana along with T.G.’s nervousness, the late hour, the fact that T.G. said the passenger had a license to carry, and the puffy coat provided the Commonwealth with the necessary reasonable suspicion to conduct a frisk of T.G. and of the passenger compartment of the car. Attorney Goldstein argued that Alexander applied retroactively, that police should have obtained a search warrant prior to the search, and there was simply no legitimate basis for concluding that T.G. was involved in some criminal activity or armed and dangerous which would justify a frisk.

The trial court agreed with the defense and granted the motion to suppress. T.G., who would have had to serve up to 16 years in prison, was promptly released from state custody.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

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 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.

Read the Opinion

Zak Goldstein 5/10/21 Zak Goldstein 5/10/21

NOT GUILTY: Attorney Goldstein Wins Rape Trial

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein

Philadelphia criminal defense lawyer Zak T. Goldstein recently won a full acquittal for his client in the case of Commonwealth v. LJ. In this difficult case, prosecutors alleged that LJ had sexually assaulted his girlfriend’s 9-year-old daughter while the girlfriend was sleeping. Based on the statements of the complainant and the complainant’s mother, who claimed to have seen some suspicious behavior but had not gone to police, prosecutors arrested LJ and charged him with rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, indecent assault, and related charges.

LJ rejected an offer to plead to time served and misdemeanor charges despite knowing that a conviction could result in a life sentence. Attorney Goldstein represented LJ during one of Philadelphia’s first jury trials since resuming trials during the COVID pandemic and successfully challenged the complainant’s credibility on the stand. By highlighting major inconsistencies in her testimony and presenting forensic evidence which made it unlikely that LJ had assaulted her on the day in question, Attorney Goldstein was able to obtain a full acquittal for LJ. LJ will now be released and will not have to register as a sex offender or spend time in prison.

These cases are very serious and often difficult to win, but the Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers of Goldstein Mehta LLC are not afraid to take challenging cases to trial.

Need a criminal defense lawyer in Philadelphia? We can help.

Whatever it is, the way you tell your story online can make all the difference. — Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Lawyers

Zak Goldstein 6/29/19 Zak Goldstein 6/29/19

Not Guilty: Attorney Goldstein Wins Murder Trial

Criminal defense lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire recently obtained a full acquittal from a Philadelphia jury in the case of Commonwealth v. K.E. for a client charged with Murder and Possession of an Instrument of Crime (“PIC”).

According to the police, K.E. and the decedent worked together at the airport. They became involved in a verbal argument after K.E. was part of a group of co-workers which broke up a physical fight between the decedent and another co-worker in the break room. Prosecutors claimed that the decedent pushed K.E., and K.E. then stabbed him one time in the leg, severing the femoral artery and quickly causing the decedent to bleed to death. The Commonwealth argued that K.E. did not act in self-defense and that he showed consciousness of guilt by allegedly fleeing the scene, hiding the knife, and telling the police that he had stabbed the decedent with keys after being punched. Police arrested K.E. a few minutes from the scene of the incident when K.E. walked over to a patrol officer and told the officer that he was the person they were looking for and that he had been punched and responded by stabbing the decedent with his keys. At that time, K.E. did not know that the decedent had died, and he later gave a statement to detectives in which he claimed self-defense but maintained that he had committed the stabbing with his keys. Three days later, however, an airport employee found a bloody knife near where the stabbing occurred, and police quickly concluded that that knife must have been used in the stabbing. Accordingly, they charged the defendant with Murder and PIC.

Fortunately, K.E. retained Philadelphia criminal defense attorney Zak Goldstein. At the time, the defendant had initially been held on $250,000 bail. However, Attorney Goldstein was quickly able to file a motion for release on house arrest pursuant to Pennsylvania’s Speedy Trial Rule (Rule 600B) and have the defendant released pending trial. This made it much easier to prepare for court and investigate the case.

K.E. decided to proceed by way of jury trial, meaning that a jury panel of twelve Philadelphians would be tasked with deciding whether K.E. committed the stabbing with malice or whether he had acted in self-defense. Because prosecutors charged K.E. with third-degree Murder, they would not have had to show that K.E. had intentionally killed the decedent in order to obtain a conviction. Instead, they needed to show only that K.E. had acted with malice – meaning he had acted recklessly and in conscious disregard of a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury with an extreme indifference to the value of human life.

Through effective cross-examination of the Commonwealth’s witnesses, Attorney Goldstein was able to show that the defendant had not in any way meant to kill the decedent and had instead acted in self-defense. The evidence ultimately showed that although K.E. had a reputation for being a peaceful, non-violent person who had never been involved in any kind of violence before, the decedent had attempted to fight a supervisor shortly before the incident, had attacked a different co-worker just minutes before the incident, and had then attacked the defendant from behind by knocking him to the ground prior to the defendant stabbing him one time in the leg with a small knife in self-defense.

Attorney Goldstein also presented the testimony of the defendant. He testified that he had been part of breaking up the fight between the decedent and the other co-worker and that he had then been attacked from behind by surprise as he turned to walk away. After he was knocked to the ground, he felt that the decedent was going to continue assaulting him, and he quickly defended himself by stabbing him one time in the leg with a knife. He admitted to and apologized for not being totally honest with the police about the keys, but he adamantly refuted the Commonwealth’s allegations that he had acted out of malice, been the aggressor in the fight, and that he did not need to defend himself with deadly force. Ultimately, many of the witnesses agreed that the decedent had actually been the aggressor, and it was also an extremely unexpected result that the decedent would unfortunately die from one stab wound to the leg with a two inch knife. Attorney Goldstein was also able to get the Medical Examiner who conducted the autopsy to agree that based on the nature of the injury, the decedent could have been moving at the time that he was stabbed, suggesting that he may have been moving towards K.E. to continue assaulting him. Thus, Attorney Goldstein argued both that K.E. had acted in self-defense and that he had not acted with malice because one would not expect a person to die from a relatively small knife wound to the leg.

After deliberating for nearly eight hours, the Philadelphia jury of twelve citizens returned a verdict of Not Guilty to both charges. K.E. was acquitted of Murder and Possessing an Instrument of Crime. This verdict is an example of the law of self-defense in Pennsylvania. If a person is in genuine, reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury, then they may defend themselves with deadly force. Even if that force results in death to another person, the person has not committed a crime because you have the right to defend yourself.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorney Zak Goldstein

Zak Goldstein 7/28/18 Zak Goldstein 7/28/18

Full Acquittal: Attorney Goldstein Wins Not Guilty Verdict in Attempted Murder/Carjacking Case

Criminal Defense Attorneys Zak Goldstein and Demetra Mehta

The Philadelphia criminal defense attorneys of Goldstein Mehta LLC have continued to find success on behalf of their clients in the courtroom, winning jury trials and motions to suppress in serious cases. Outside of the courtroom, we are also a source of insightful legal analysis on criminal defense issues in the news. Recently, our defense attorneys have won criminal cases involving charges ranging from Attempted Murder to DUI and Possession with the Intent to Deliver. Some of our recent wins include:

Commonwealth v. R. R. – Jury Acquits Client of Attempted Murder, Carjacking, and Related Charges

R.R. was charged with Attempted Murder, Robbery of a Motor Vehicle (carjacking), Robbery, Aggravated Assault, Conspiracy, and related gun charges. Prosecutors alleged that R.R. and a friend robbed the complainant after a drug deal, taking his cell phone, car keys, and a small amount of money. R.R. then shot the complainant twice when the complainant tried to demand that R.R. return the car keys. The complainant, however, initially denied to police at the scene that he knew who shot him. He was then briefly interviewed by detectives at the hospital, and he again reiterated that he did not know the person who shot him.

A few days later, after police allegedly received an anonymous tip that R.R. was the shooter in this incident, Philadelphia detectives re-interviewed the complainant. This time, he told them that R.R., a long-time friend, was the person who shot him and stole his car. A second witness also allegedly came forward a few days later and claimed to have been smoking marijuana with the complainant just before the shooting and that she was still present at the scene when R.R. shot the complainant. She called 911 right at the time of the shooting, but when police arrived at the scene, she refused to give a statement. She also did not claim that R.R. was involved in the shooting for a week or two. When she did finally give a statement, she said that she saw R.R. in the area right before the shooting, but she did not see the shooting itself. At trial, of course, she changed her story and testified that she personally saw R.R. shoot the complainant. In addition to the witness statements, police obtained cell phone records that showed that R.R. and the complainant had exchanged a number of text messages and phone calls directly before the shooting. Police also recovered the complainant’s car a few days later and held it for fingerprints and DNA .

Based on these later statements of the complainant and the eyewitness in which they claimed that R.R. was the shooter, police arrested R.R. and charged him with Attempted Murder and related charges. R.R. rejected the Commonwealth’s plea offer and decided to proceed by way of a jury trial. At trial, Attorney Goldstein was able to successfully argue to the jury that the witnesses had fabricated their statements. Attorney Goldstein highlighted the fact that the complainant gave two separate statements right after the shooting in which he did not tell police that R.R. shot him. He also impeached the eyewitness on the fact that she did not come forward for weeks and was on probation for theft at the time that she made the statement. He also confronted her with her original statement in which she never said that she actually saw the shooting itself. Finally, Attorney Goldstein called the police department’s own DNA analyst as a witness to testify that the steering wheel and gear shift of the complainant’s car had been tested for DNA and they had been unable to match the DNA to R.R.

In closing, Attorney Goldstein argued that the Commonwealth had simply failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The DNA did not match R.R., there was no other physical evidence linking him to the crime, and both the complainant and eyewitness had failed to either implicate R.R. or come forward after the shooting. Both have given multiple contradictory statements, and even the assigned detective had given testimony that was impeached through his own police reports. The jury deliberated for approximately two hours before acquitting R.R. of all charges. R.R., who had been held pending the trial, was released from custody.

Commonwealth v. A.R. – Motion to Suppress Granted in DUI Case

Police arrested and charged A.R. with driving under the influence of marijuana and Xanax. The arresting officer claimed that he saw A.R. driving through Philadelphia with a defective center brake light, which is a violation of the motor vehicle code. Based on the defective brake light, the officer activated his lights and sirens and attempted to pull A.R. over. The officer claimed that A.R. refused to pull over for numerous blocks and seemed like he was trying to flee from the officer. Further, after A.R. did eventually pull over, the officer approached the car and immediately noticed the strong odor of marijuana coming from the vehicle. The officer further testified that A.R. had slurred speech, slow movements, was uncooperative, and admitted to smoking marijuana.

On paper, the case looked very difficult. Fortunately, A.R. retained Attorney Goldstein. Attorney Goldstein litigated a motion to suppress the statement regarding smoking marijuana and the blood test which showed the presence of marijuana and Xanax in A.R.’s blood. At the hearing on the motion, the officer testified that A.R. refused to pull over and immediately blurted out that he had been smoking weed, but the officer’s report directly contradicted his testimony. In his report, the officer specified the exact location at which he claimed he initially saw A.R. operating the car with the broken brake light and the location at which A.R. eventually pulled over. Although the officer testified that A.R. attempted to flee when the officer activated his lights and sirens, Attorney Goldstein was able to use a map of the area to show that in reality, A.R. had pulled over within two or three blocks at most of first coming into contact with the police officer. Given that A.R. actually pulled over within two or three blocks, the testimony that A.R. refused to pull over simply did not make any sense.

Further, the officer eventually admitted that he had not even waited for A.R. to roll down the window but had instead immediately opened the car door himself. Attorney Goldstein argued at the motion to suppress hearing that the Philadelphia Municipal Court judge should reject the officer’s testimony as not credible because of the obvious contradiction provided by the map and find that the officer engaged in an illegal search of the car when he opened the car door himself without giving A.R. the opportunity to roll the window down. Attorney Goldstein also called the police officer who conducted the blood draw at the police station an hour or two after the arrest to testify that he had not recorded any observations of intoxication or odor of marijuana on the report that this second officer created when he came into contact with A.R.

The Municipal Court judge agreed with Attorney Goldstein and granted the motion to suppress. Without the critical blood evidence and incriminating statement, prosecutors had no choice but to withdraw all charges.

Commonwealth v. K.H. – Judge Acquits Client of Drug Charges Following Bench Trial

Police charged K.H. with Possession with the Intent to Deliver, Knowing and Intentional Possession of a Controlled Substance, Conspiracy, and Possessing an Instrument of Crime. Prosecutors alleged that K.H. and another man sold drugs in Kensington. Philadelphia narcotics officers claimed that they set up surveillance from a vehicle parked down the block and began watching as the alleged buyers approached. The officer claimed that the buyers would each hand money to K.H.’s co-defendant, who was standing on the sidewalk, and then K.H., who was standing in an alley, would hand small items consistent with narcotics packaging to the alleged buyers. As the alleged buyers exited the block, back up officers would arrive and take them into custody. Police successfully stopped four of the five alleged buyers and found that they had drugs on them. Concluding that K.H. and the co-defendant must have been selling drugs, police then moved in to search the alley, the abandoned house nearby, and to arrest the defendants.

Police arrested K.H. and found that he had $40 on him. They arrested the co-defendant, who tried to run. They also found drugs which matched those found on the alleged buyers in the alley, and they found a shotgun in a nearby abandoned house which the surveillance officer claimed that he had seen K.H. briefly enter and exit. K.H. was arrested after walking in and out of a different house on the corner of the block. Officers claimed that they entered and searched both the abandoned house and the house which K.H. had walked out of right before being arrested.

K.H. immediately retained Goldstein Mehta LLC for his defense. At the preliminary hearing, recognizing that the case would become significantly less serious if K.H. were not facing gun charges, our criminal defense attorneys focused on getting the Possessing Instrument of Crime charge which stemmed from the discovery of the shotgun in the abandoned house dismissed. Attorney Goldstein extensively cross-examined the police witnesses on whether they had ever seen K.H. in possession of the gun, whether the gun was out in the open in the abandoned house, and whether police had attempted to obtain fingerprints or DNA from the shotgun. Because the shotgun was hidden, police never saw K.H. in possession of it, and police had not bothered to conduct any forensic testing on the gun, Attorney Goldstein was successfully able to move for the dismissal of the gun charge. Attorney Goldstein also cross-examined the main police officer on the location from which he was supposedly watching the drug sales, which would become extremely important at trial.

K.H. then elected to proceed to a bench trial in which the trial judge, instead of a jury, makes the decision as to guilt. At the bench trial, the narcotics officers testified to roughly the same story that they had provided at the preliminary hearing. They claimed that K.H. provided small objects, which later turned out to be drugs, to five alleged buyers. They also claimed that they were successfully able to stop and arrest four of those five buyers and recover the drugs which K.H. had allegedly sold.

On cross-examination, however, Attorney Goldstein was able to use photographs of the crime scene to establish that the officer would not have been able to see into the alley to see who was actually making the drug sales from the location in which he said he was parked at the preliminary hearing. Attorney Goldstein also successfully established that the officer had searched the corner property on the street without a search warrant. Although the officer tried to claim that he could legally search the property without a warrant because the property was abandoned, Attorney Goldstein used photographs of the house and K.H.’s lease for the property to show that the property was not abandoned and police had entered the house without a warrant. Finally, Attorney Goldstein introduced character evidence which showed the judge that K.H. had never been arrested before and had an excellent reputation in the community for being a peaceful, law-abiding citizen. After recognizing that K.H. had no prior record, had not been found in actual possession of any drugs, and that the abandoned house was not actually abandoned, the trial judge found that she had reasonable doubt as to whether K.H. was actually the person in the alley. The judge found K.H. Not Guilty of all charges despite the fact that police claimed to have seen him selling drugs to five separate people.

Attorney Goldstein Quoted in Philly.com Articles on Indecent Assault and Impact of #MeToo Movement on Criminal Defense Strategies

In addition to winning cases in the courtroom, our attorneys are often asked for analysis of criminal defense issues by the media. For example, Attorney Goldstein was recently quoted in two separate articles in the Philadelphia Inquirer.

In one article, Attorney Goldstein was asked to provide insight on how attorneys are responding to the #MeToo Movement in sexual assault cases. You can read the article here.

In the other article, Attorney Goldstein was asked to comment on the potential charges a person could face for groping a stranger in public and whether the victim would face charges if he or she responded by punching the groper. You can read the article here.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

If you are under investigation or facing criminal charges in Pennsylvania or New Jersey, we can help. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers have successfully defended thousands of clients in state and federal courts throughout PA and NJ. We are experienced and understanding defense attorneys with the skill and ability to help you with your case, and we are not afraid to take a case to trial. We offer a free 15-minute criminal defense strategy session to each potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with a criminal defense attorney today.