Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog

Zak Goldstein 11/14/19 Zak Goldstein 11/14/19

PA Superior Court: Improper Admission of Hearsay Statement that Defendant Managed House of Prostitution Requires New Trial

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Lu, holding that the trial court erred in allowing the Commonwealth to introduce a hearsay statement that the defendant, who was charged with promoting, managing, or supervising a house of prostitution, was the manager of the brothel. This case is important because it highlights the difference between inadmissible hearsay and statements which should not be admitted because they would violate a defendant’s right to confront his or her accusers under the confrontation clause.

The facts of Lu

In Lu, the defendant was charged with promoting, managing, or supervising a house of prostitution business under 18 Pa.C.S. Sec. 5902(b)(1) and criminal conspiracy. Police testified that they received a complaint from the FBI regarding certain Back Page postings that suggested that underage girls may be involved in prostitution. After conducting some investigation, a Philadelphia Police Officer called the number advertised on the Back Page posting. An Asian female voice answered the phone and arranged for a meeting with the officer at a certain address on Rhawn Street. The officer was told that the business would not open until 2 am. He was also told by text that there were four young girls and that he could do whatever he wanted for certain prices.

Later that night, the officer went to the address in plainclothes and rang the doorbell. The defendant opened the door and waved the officer into the foyer. The defendant spoke with the officer in English and led the officer into a room where three Asian women in lingerie were sitting on a sofa. The defendant then walked the officer closer to the girls and motioned with an open hand as if he were presenting them to the officer. The officer asked, “wow, I pick?” to which the girls laughed, but the defendant remained silent. The officer chose one of the women and went with her to the third floor of the building. The woman escorted him to a bedroom, put a bag of condoms and lubricant on the night table, and counted the money that the officer had brought with him. The woman explicitly agreed to have oral or vaginal sex with the officer for money, and the officer then asked who the defendant was. The woman told the officer that the defendant was the manager.

The officer then called for the arrest team. They entered the building, arrested the defendant, recovered various phones, and also found $2,900. The officer then identified himself as a police officer for the first time.

The criminal trial

The defendant was arrested and charged with the above defenses. Prior to trial, his defense attorney filed a motion in limine in the trial court asking the court to preclude the statement that the defendant was the manager because the woman who made the statement was not present in court to testify. The court found that the statement was admissible pursuant to a hearsay exception for statements made by the defendant’s co-conspirators during and in furtherance of the conspiracy. However, although the defense objected on confrontation grounds as well, the court did not provide any analysis for how the statement could be admissible under the confrontation clause. The defendant was convicted at trial and sentenced to 3-6 months’ incarceration. He appealed to the Superior Court.

The Appeal

On appeal, the defendant argued not only that the statement was hearsay, but also that its admission violated his right to confront the witnesses against him. The Superior Court ultimately agreed with the defendant that the statement should not have been admitted because the defendant did not have the opportunity to cross-examine the woman who made the statement. Whether or not the admission of a statement violates the Confrontation Clause generally depends on whether the statement is “testimonial.” Various appellate courts have held that statements are not testimonial when they are made to police or the first responders in order to obtain aid during an ongoing emergency. For this reason, the admission of 911 calls often does not violate the confrontation clause depending on the statement. However, when the statement is made not in response to an ongoing emergency but because police are simply investigating a potential crime, then the statement is typically considered testimonial and would be inadmissible at trial without the actual witness testifying. This is true even if the statement satisfies some exception to the rule against hearsay. Thus, a statement be admissible as non-hearsay or as a hearsay exception but still inadmissible under the confrontation clause.

The Superior Court reversed the defendant’s conviction. It found that the statement established that the defendant was the manager and that it was not made in response to any kind of ongoing emergency. Therefore, the statement was testimonial, and it should not have been admitted without the witness having to testify. Accordingly, the defendant will receive a new trial.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

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.

Zak Goldstein 11/10/19 Zak Goldstein 11/10/19

PA Superior Court: Adult Defendants Cannot Be Required to Register as Sex Offenders for Crimes Committed as Juveniles

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Haines, holding that adults may not be required to register as sex offenders when they are prosecuted and convicted for sex crimes that they committed while under the age of 18. This case is most likely to apply in situations where a defendant who was also a juvenile at the time is accused of committing some type of sex offense against another juvenile and the complainant then does not come forward until the defendant has become an adult. It is an important opinion which recognizes that children simply have not finished developing mentally prior to the age of 18 and so should not be punished as adults even when there is a delayed report of a sex offense.

The Facts of Haines

In Haines, the defendant pleaded guilty in 2017 to two counts of Indecent Assault of a person less than thirteen years of age. The charges related to incidents which occurred approximately ten years earlier when both the victims and the defendant were children. Specifically, the defendant was 14 or 15. The defendant pleaded guilty, but prior to sentencing, she moved to bar any sex offender registration requirement pursuant to the Supreme Court’s opinion in Commonwealth v. Muniz in which the Court held that SORNA registration is punitive.

The trial court denied the defendant’s motion and imposed sex offender registration requirements. The defendant appealed, arguing both that she could not be required to register under a statute which did not exist at the time of the offense as this would constitute an ex post facto violation and that the cruel and unusual punishment clause bars requiring an adult to register as a sex offender for a crime committed as a juvenile.

The Superior Court’s Opinion

The Superior Court agreed with the defendant on the juvenile issue. The court concluded that requiring an adult to register as a sex offender for crimes committed as a juvenile constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. The Court noted that lifetime registration for juveniles who commit sex crimes and are prosecuted while they are still juveniles has already been found unconstitutional by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. It further noted that the United States Supreme Court has recognized that mandatory life imprisonment for juvenile defendants is also unconstitutional based on the inherent understanding of the fundamental differences between adults and children, children’s lack of maturity, and their undeveloped sense of responsibility leading to recklessness, impulsivity, and heedless risk-taking.

Synthesizing these two opinions, the Court quickly concluded that had the defendant been adjudicated delinquent at the time of the offense, she would not have been registered to register as a sex offender. The fact that she was subsequently convicted as an adult does not change the fact that she was a juvenile at the time of the commission of the offense. Therefore, she should not be held to an irrefutable presumption of re-offending even though she was not prosecuted until she had turned 26. Therefore, the Court reversed the portion of the sentence requiring the defendant to register as a sex offender.

This is an extremely important opinion as it is not uncommon for delayed reports of sex offenses to lead to prosecutions of adults for crimes committed when they were children. This opinion makes the collateral consequences of a conviction somewhat closer to what they would have been had there been a timely prosecution for the offense. As this case was decided by a three-judge panel of the Superior Court, it is very possible that the Court could grant en banc review or that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court could review the decision.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Criminal Defense Lawyers Demetra Mehta and Zak Goldstein

Zak Goldstein 9/19/19 Zak Goldstein 9/19/19

Not Guilty: Attorney Goldstein Wins Full Acquittal in Rape Jury Trial

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire recently won a full acquittal from a Philadelphia jury on Rape charges in the case of Commonwealth v. J.B..

In this case, the complainant alleged that her mother's boyfriend, J.B., had been regularly beating her with a belt and sexually assaulting her. She claimed that these incidents would usually happen when she got in trouble at school or otherwise failed to follow the rules in the home. She also claimed that this would often happen when her mother or siblings were home, but no one saw anything or did anything about it. Based on her complaint, Philadelphia Police arrested J.B. and charged him with Rape, Unlawful Contact with a Minor, and Indecent Assault.

Knowing that these cases are extremely difficult to defend and win at trial, J.B. retained Attorney Goldstein for trial. Upon reviewing the discovery for the case, Attorney Goldstein quickly saw that there were major problems with the complainant's story, and Attorney Goldstein was able to show those problems to the Philadelphia jury.

First, the complainant had made similar allegations to her sister and mother prior to going to the police but then admitted to them that she had made the story up because she was afraid of getting in trouble for receiving a bad report card at school.

Second, although she claimed that J.B. had beaten her with a belt and sexually assaulted her two days before she went to the police, not a single investigator had seen her with any kind of bruising or injuries. The police officers who investigated, the DHS worker who was assigned to her case, and the medical professionals who examined her at the hospital all failed to note any injuries or bruising of any kind.

Third, there were major inconsistencies in her story that Attorney Goldstein was able to highlight on cross-examination.

Finally, she claimed that this had all happened in broad daylight in front of numerous family members, but none of the family members had seen anything or corroborated her story, and the Commonwealth had also not obtained any physical or forensic evidence linking J.B. to any kind of assault in any way.

Attorney Goldstein successfully cross-examined the complainant on these major holes in her story and highlighted the lack of any other corroborating evidence for the jury. Faced with the problems in the testimony and the lack of physical evidence, the jury quickly acquitted J.B. of all charges.

These types of cases are extremely difficult to defend and win in today's climate. Jurors are under a significant amount of pressure to believe the alleged victim in a sexual assault case even in the absence of any corroborating evidence. Therefore, if you or a loved one are facing criminal charges for alleged sexual misconduct, it is extremely important that you retain counsel with the skill and experience necessary to properly defend you in court and protect the presumption of innocence.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

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, DUI, PWID, Rape, and Murder. We have also won new trials on appeal and in Post-Conviction Relief Act litigation for clients who were wrongfully convicted or who received the ineffective assistance of counsel. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.

Zak Goldstein 9/14/19 Zak Goldstein 9/14/19

Attorney Goldstein Wins New Trial In Sexual Assault Case On Appeal of PCRA Petition

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire recently won a new trial for a client who had been convicted of rape and related charges for allegedly molesting his step-daughter.

In Commonwealth v. R.S., the defendant had been charged with rape of a child and related charges for allegedly sexually assaulting his step-daughter. The client was represented by a different attorney at trial, and at trial, the complainant testified to the details of the alleged abuse. The Commonwealth also called a number of witnesses to testify to the complainant’s disclosure of the allegations as well as the investigating detective.

In response, the defendant’s attorney called his then-wife to testify that she did not believe the allegations and had never seen anything suspicious. He also called the defendant to testify, and the defendant adamantly denied the allegations. The Commonwealth introduced no physical or forensic evidence to corroborate the allegations, and there were no other witnesses who had ever seen anything even remotely inappropriate. Nonetheless, the jury convicted R.S. of the charges based solely on the testimony of the complainant. R.S. was sentenced to 40 years’ incarceration, and his direct appeals were denied.

The Post-Conviction Relief Act Petition

After the Superior Court denied the direct appeal, R.S. retained Attorney Goldstein to file a Post-Conviction Relief Act Petition. Attorney Goldstein reviewed the transcripts and immediately noticed that the trial attorney had made a number of critical errors during the course of the trial. Most importantly, the trial attorney had failed to call character witnesses on R.S.’s behalf.

In Pennsylvania, character evidence is extremely important and may be the basis for reasonable doubt on its own. A defendant who has no prior criminal convictions may call witnesses to testify on his or her behalf and to tell a judge or jury that the defendant has an excellent reputation in the community for being a peaceful, non-violent person. A defendant who produces that type of testimony is then entitled to a special jury instruction which informs the jury that the character testimony, if believed, may provide the basis for reasonable doubt even if the jury otherwise believed the allegations.

Here, R.S. had no prior convictions, but his defense attorney failed to introduce any character evidence at trial. Therefore, one of the main claims in the PCRA Petition was that the defense attorney provided the ineffective assistance of counsel by neglecting to call character witnesses on R.S.’s behalf and thereby failing to obtain this critical jury instruction. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing and eventually credited the attorney’s testimony that he felt that character evidence was not relevant because the defendant’s wife had testified that she did not believe the complainant. The trial court then denied the PCRA Petition, finding that trial counsel had provided the effective assistance of counsel.

The Appeal of the PCRA Petition’s Denial

PCRA Petitions can be difficult to win in the trial court because they are typically heard by the judge who presided over the trial. Naturally, many judges do not want to overturn a conviction for a case where they sat through the trial, particularly if the judge agreed with the result. Fortunately, the improper denial of a Post-Conviction Relief Act Petition may be appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court and Supreme Court if necessary. Judges may also simply disagree with the claims raised in the Petition.

After the trial judge denied the PCRA Petition, Attorney Goldstein immediately filed an appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. In a lengthy opinion, the Superior Court overruled the trial court and ordered a new trial. Superior Court concluded that based on a century of precedent, trial counsel was ineffective in failing to call character witnesses on R.S.’s behalf, and the mere fact that he had called fact witnesses as part of the defense did not eliminate the requirement that he provide effective representation by calling the character witnesses. The Court noted that this entire case came down to the testimony of two witnesses - the complainant who said that this happened, and R.S. who said that it did not. R.S. suffered prejudice from the fact that the jury was not informed of his outstanding reputation in the community and the instruction that that reputation alone could provide a reasonable doubt.

Fortunately, the Superior Court reversed the conviction and awarded R.S. a new trial at which he will be able to call the character witnesses.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Philadelphia 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, DUI, PWID, 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.