Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog

Zak Goldstein 2/7/18 Zak Goldstein 2/7/18

The Use of Fingerprints in Pennsylvania Criminal Cases

Fingerprinting in Pennsylvania Criminal Cases

Philadelphia Criminal Lawyer Zak Goldstein

Law enforcement officers frequently attempt to solve criminal cases through the use of fingerprints in Pennsylvania. This guide explains when the police may take your fingerprints, whether you may ever have those fingerprints destroyed, and some of the problems inherent in fingerprint examination. It also discusses the recent case of Commonwealth v. Presher, in which the Superior Court held that the a court may not order a defendant to submit to fingerprinting after the defendant has been found not guilty at trial. The effect of the court's holding will be limited due to the relatively rare circumstances present in this case, but the Superior Court issued strong language in rejecting the idea that the trial court could continue to exercise jurisdiction over a defendant who has been acquitted.

Will the police take my fingerprints if I get arrested in Pennsylvania?

The answer to this question is yes, with some exceptions. In Pennsylvania, the law requires a defendant who has been charged with a felony, misdemeanor, or certain summaries to undergo fingerprinting after being arrested. In most cases, you will be fingerprinted when you are taken to the police district upon arrest. In some cases, if you are not arrested and the case was initiated by a summons, the summons will command you to go to the police station to be fingerprinted. The summons will typically instruct you to have this done prior to the preliminary hearing; if not, then the magisterial district justice will usually order that it be done. Additionally, if someone filed a private criminal complaint against you, then you will be fingerprinted if you are convicted. Accordingly, the only time you do not have to worry about being fingerprinted is if you are arrested for a summary offense that does not have a recidivist misdemeanor clause in its statute and the case is not proceeded by a summons.

What happens if I refuse to be fingerprinted?

The failure to comply with this order could eventually result in the revocation of bail if a case is pending or a finding of contempt of court. In some cases, however, the police and prosecutors do not realize that the defendant has not been fingerprinted, and the case may fall through the cracks without the defendant getting fingerprinted.

Can the police make me give my fingerprints if I have not been charged with a crime?

There are ways for the police to get your fingerprints if they are still investigating the case and have not charged you with a crime. For example, the police could ask you for your consent. If you give consent, then the police can take your fingerprints without a warrant or an arrest. If you refuse to consent to fingerprinting and the police have not arrested you, then they could ask a judge to sign a search warrant ordering you to provide your fingerprints. In that case, the police would be able to get your fingerprints prior to making an arrest. If you refuse to provide them, then you could be held in contempt of court and arrested. Additionally, the police could use trickery to obtain your fingerprints. For example, if they remove an item from the trash that has your fingerprints on them, they would most likely be allowed to use any viable prints lifted from the item.

Can I have my fingerprints destroyed if I win my case?

Unless you were fingerprinted as a juvenile, the answer to this question is no. Once you are arrested as an adult, the government will have your fingerprints for the rest of your life. This is true even if you win your case and obtain an expungement of your criminal record because the District Attorney is permitted to retain their case file in order to determine eligibility for diversionary programs in the future. Typically, once you are arrested, your fingerprints will be entered into the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System, which is commonly referred to as AFIS. This is a system that holds thousands of fingerprints. As discussed later, this can be a real problem because fingerprint "science" is not perfect, and you could be arrested if a lab technician later subjectively determines that your fingerprints "matched" prints that were found at a crime scene.

How do the police analyze fingerprints?

Police frequently attempt to lift fingerprints in order to solve robbery, burglary, and other theft cases where there are no eyewitnesses. For example, let’s say that someone commits a burglary at a residence and leaves fingerprints on a glass door. A crime scene investigator will arrive and and “lift” the print from the door. This requires a lot of care because a print can easily be smudged or altered. Assuming the technician does not botch the lifting of the print, the police will then run the print through the AFIS system. At this point, the system will generate 20 fingerprints for a lab technician. It is important to note that lab technicians are not required to have a degree in forensic science. In fact, in Philadelphia, a technician does not even need to be a college graduate and need only have a high school diploma. Further, in Philadelphia, the unit that is responsible for analyzing fingerprints is not accredited.

After AFIS generates the potential matches, the technician will review the prints and see if he or she can find a “match.” In determining whether there is a match, the technician will look for several features of the print. Typically, there are about 150 characteristics of a fingerprint. However, there only needs to be between 10-12 similarities for a technician to say that someone’s prints match those taken from a crime scene. Further, in Philadelphia, these technicians will not analyze all 20 prints. Instead, they will just analyze a print until they find one that they believe is a match. After the technician believes they found a “match,” they will then dispose of the remaining prints.

In determining whether there is a match or not, the technician does not use a computer system to review the matches. Rather, the technician will use a magnifying glass or some other object to enhance his or her vision and make a determination using their eyes to see if there is a match. This may go without saying, but this is clearly subjective and not actual science. The use of the term "match" implies that computers are processing this data, but in reality, fingerprint "matches" are based solely on the subjective personal opinion of the examiner.

Is fingerprint science perfect?

Of course not. As discussed above, fingerprint examination is not really science. It is no surprise that mistakes happen, and these mistakes are not limited to the Philadelphia Police. In 2004, terrorists attacked trains in Madrid, Spain. This was a horrific event where 192 people were killed and thousands were injured. The United States government assisted the Spanish government in trying to track down who was responsible for these attacks. Specifically, the FBI was sent to help solve this case.

During the investigation, the authorities located a fingerprint on a bag that contained one of the detonating devices and were able to lift the print. Based on their review of the print, the FBI concluded that it belonged to a Brandon Mayfield, a U.S. citizen who had been an FBI person of interest for quite some time. Consequently, Mr. Mayfield’s home was wiretapped and he eventually was arrested. However, Brandon Mayfield was not responsible for these acts. Investigators later concluded that that particular fingerprint belonged to a Ouhnane Daoud, an Algerian national. Eventually, the charges were dropped, and the United States government settled a lawsuit with Mr. Mayfield. Mr. Mayfield’s case shows how unreliable fingerprint analysis can be.

Commonwealth v. Presher

In Mr. Presher’s case, the Superior Court did not get into the factual history of the case in great detail. However, what we do know is that he was charged with theft and receipt of stolen property. Additionally, Mr. Presher’s case was proceeded by a summons which means that he was subjected to the pre-conviction fingerprinting requirements. However, for some unknown reason, Mr. Presher was never fingerprinted.

Mr. Presher then proceeded to have his case tried by a jury where he was acquitted of all charges. Despite this, the Commonwealth still asked that Mr. Presher be fingerprinted. The trial court granted the Commonwealth’s motion. Mr. Presher then filed a motion for reconsideration, however that was denied. He then filed a timely appeal.

Can a court make me give my fingerprints if I was acquitted?

If you have already been fingerprinted, then the answer is unfortunately that your fingerprints will remain in the system. If you managed to make it to trial, however, then you cannot be ordered to submit to fingerprinting after an acquittal. The Superior Court recently addressed this issue in the case of Commonwealth v. Presher. In Presher, the court held that a defendant who has been acquitted cannot be required to submit to fingerprinting.

In making its decision, the Superior Court focused largely on the language used in 18 Pa.C.S. § 9112 (b)(2). The statute reads:

Where defendants named in police complaints are proceeded against by summons, or for offenses under section 3929 (relating to retail theft), the court of proper jurisdiction shall order the defendant to submit within five days of such order for fingerprinting by the municipal police of the jurisdiction in which the offense allegedly was committed or, in the absence of a police department, the State Police. Fingerprints so obtained shall, within 48 hours, be forwarded to the central repository in a manner and in such form as may be provided by the central repository.

The Superior Court's rationale stemmed from the fact that § 9112(b)(2) uses the word “defendant.” It does not use the word person, which is different from § 9101(a) which uses the word “person.” This is significant because for Mr. Presher, his case was initiated by a summons and thus fell under § 9101(b)(2).

After Mr. Presher was acquitted of his charges, the Superior Court held that he was no longer a “defendant.” Therefore, he was not subject to the fingerprinting requirements of § 9101(b)(2), and thus the trial court was incorrect in ordering him to provide his fingerprints to the Commonwealth. The Superior Court reasoned that if they ordered Mr. Presher to provide his fingerprints this would amount to a post-acquittal punishment.

Experienced and Understanding Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorneys

If you are charged with a crime and the police are using fingerprint evidence against you, you need a skilled attorney with the knowledge and expertise to fight your case. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers have successfully litigated countless cases where the Commonwealth used fingerprint evidence against our clients. We offer a 15-minute criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to discuss your case with an experienced and understanding criminal defense attorney today.

Zak Goldstein 1/3/18 Zak Goldstein 1/3/18

PA Superior Court Reverses Robbery Conviction Because Prosecutors Struck Jurors Due to Race

Prosecutors May Not Discriminate Against Jurors Based On Race

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esq.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has just decided the case of Commonwealth v. Edwards. The Court reversed Edwards’ multiple convictions for gunpoint robbery after finding that the prosecution improperly struck jurors because they were African American. The Court concluded that the defendant successfully raised a challenge to the prosecution’s decisions during jury selection under the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Batson v. Kentucky.

Edwards was charged with multiple gunpoint robberies and related charges for allegedly robbing five men and shooting one of them. His co-defendant took a plea deal and testified against him in exchange for a reduced sentence, and the jury found Edwards guilty of all of the charges. After he was convicted, he was sentenced to 22 to 44 years of incarceration.

Edwards appealed, raising challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence as well as what is called a Batson challenge. The Superior Court rejected the challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, but it found that the trial court should have granted the defendant’s motion to seat excluded African American jurors pursuant to Batson. A Batson challenge involves challenging the prosecution’s use of race as a factor in picking and striking jurors during jury selection. In Batson, the United States Supreme Court held that the prosecution violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution by striking potential jurors solely on the basis of race.

Batson Challenges

In Pennsylvania, the analysis under Batson involves three stages. First, the defendant must make a prima facie showing that the circumstances give rise to an inference that the prosecutor struck one or more prospective jurors due to their race. Second, when the defense can make such a showing, the burden shifts to the prosecutor to provide race-neutral reasons for why the prosecutor struck the jurors at issue. Third, the trial court must then make the ultimate determination as to whether the defense has proven purposeful discrimination against jurors based on race.

Here, the defendant was able to show that the prosecution had discriminated against the jurors based on race for a number of reasons. First, the trial court used an incredibly suspect method of jury selection in which the list of jurors from which the parties made their peremptory challenges (strikes) included the race and gender of every juror. Second, in making its eight strikes, the prosecutor struck seven African Americans and an eigth non-caucasian potential juror, meaning that every single prosecution strike was of a minority. Third, the Superior Court found that the prosecution’s reasons for striking the jurors were not plausible. For example, the prosecutor stated that the Commonwealth struck jurors because they were joking with each other or because of they way they were sitting. Although those reasons would be facially race-neutral for purposes of the second part of the test, the Superior Court found that the reasons simply were not persuasive given the improper juror list and statistics involved.

Ultimately, during jury selection, the parties considered 30 potential jurors. Of those 30, 13 were African-American. The Commonwealth used seven of its eight strikes on African-Americans, and it used the eighth strike on a member of a different minority group. The Commonwealth did not strike a single white juror. Although statistics alone cannot prove a discriminatory intent on the part of the prosecutor, the Court was appalled by the fact that the prosecution used all eight strikes on minorities and then attempted to explain its decision to do so by stating that it did not like the way one of the potential African American jurors was leaning while sitting. This was particularly true in light of the fact that the trial court had actually instructed the jurors at the beginning of jury selection to sit back and relax because the process would take some time. Thus, the Court found that the Commonwealth’s reason was implausible. The Court reversed the defendant’s conviction and remanded the case for a new trial.

Pennsylvania and United States law prohibit the Government from excluding jurors based on race. In most cases, this rule is difficult to enforce because prosecutors will be able to protect themselves by striking some white jurors. It is also typically easy to come up with reasons for striking the jurors which are unrelated to race. However, where the Commonwealth seems to be engaging in a pattern of racial discrimination during jury selection, it is important to raise a Batson challenge in order to either have the jurors seated or preserve the issue for appeal. It is also important to remember that Pennsylvania law requires the party making a Batson challenge to include on the record the race of the stricken prospective jurors, the race of prospective jurors who were acceptable to the striking party but stricken by the party making the challenge, and the racial composition of the jury seated for trial.

Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help

Our Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers represent individuals and organizations who are charged with crimes or under investigation in all types of state and federal criminal matters at the trial level. If you are facing charges, call or text 267-225-2545 for a free criminal defense strategy session. Our attorneys are licensed in Pennsylvania and New Jersey and routinely appear in the Philadelphia courts as well as in the surrounding counties of Delaware, Bucks, Montgomery, and Chester. We handle preliminary hearings, grand jury investigations, pre-trial motions such as motions to suppress, motions to quash, motions to dismiss, and speedy trial motions, as well as bench and jury trials. We have had success both in obtaining dismissals before trial and acquittals at trial in front of judges and juries. If you are facing criminal charges, we can help.

Zak Goldstein 11/7/17 Zak Goldstein 11/7/17

PA Superior Court: Guilty Plea Invalid Where Defendant Not Warned of Obligation to Pay Restitution

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has just decided the case of Commonwealth v. Rotola, holding that the trial court may not order restitution at sentencing in a plea bargained case unless the defendant agreed to restitution as part of the plea bargain.

Commonwealth v. Rotola

Theft of Property Lost, Mislaid or Delivered by Mistake and Restitution

In Rotola, the defendant pleaded guilty to theft of property lost, mislaid or delivered by mistake as a misdemeanor of the first degree. The court ordered Rotola to serve 9-24 months, less one day, of incarceration and pay restitution in the amount of $25,000, jointly and severally with his co-defendant. Initially, the court found Rotola solely responsible for the theft of $25,000 in jewelry. However, after Rotola filed a post-sentence motion to reconsider, the trial court made Rotola jointly and severally liable with his co-defendant.

Given the extremely high restitution figure, Rotola appealed. On appeal, Rotola argued that the restitution amount was both not supported by the record and not the direct result of his conduct. Rotola pleaded guilty to theft as a misdemeanor of the first degree, and theft as an M1 indicates that the property stolen was worth less than $2,000. Thus, Rotola argued that it was excessive to impose a restitution amount so far exceeding $2,000 when he pleaded guilty to an offense which suggested the restitution should only be $2,000. He also argued that he was not as culpable as his co-defendant who had actually stolen the property as his role in the crime was to sell only a portion of the stolen goods to a pawn shop.

The Pennsylvania Restitution Statute

The statute governing restitution in criminal cases makes restitution mandatory regardless of ability to pay. It provides:

§ 1106. Restitution for injuries to person or property

(a) GENERAL RULE.-- Upon conviction for any crime wherein property has been stolen, converted or otherwise unlawfully obtained, or its value substantially decreased as a direct result of the crime, or wherein the victim suffered personal injury directly resulting from the crime, the offender shall be sentenced to make restitution in addition to the punishment prescribed therefor.

(1) The court shall order full restitution: (i) Regardless of the current financial resources of the defendant, so as to provide the victim with the fullest compensation for the loss.

(2) At the time of sentencing the court shall specify the amount and method of restitution. In determining the amount and method of restitution, the court:

(i) Shall consider the extent of injury suffered by the victim, the victim’s request for restitution . . . and such other matters as it deems appropriate.

(ii) May order restitution in a lump sum, by monthly installments or according to such other schedule as it deems just.

(4) (i) It shall be the responsibility of the district attorneys of the respective counties to make a recommendation to the court at or prior to the time of sentencing as to the amount of restitution to be ordered. This recommendation shall be based upon information solicited by the district attorney and received from the victim.

(ii) Where the district attorney has solicited information from the victims as provided in subparagraph (i) and has received no response, the district attorney shall, based on other available information, make a recommendation to the court for restitution.

Restitution in Theft Cases

After Rotola appealed, the Superior Court rejected his second argument, finding that because the defendants acted together criminally to cause a single harm to the victim, both defendants were responsible for the full restitution despite Rotola being somewhat less involved.

The Court, however, agreed with the first argument. It found that there was no agreement as to restitution and no suggestion in the record that Rotola would be responsible for restitution. The plea paperwork did not suggest that he would be responsible for restitution, and the oral colloquy conducted by the sentencing judge did not inform Rotola that he would be responsible for restitution. Given the complete absence of any mention of restitution on the record, the Superior Court agreed with Rotola that the guilty plea to theft could not have been knowing, intentional, and voluntary. Therefore, the Court reversed the conviction and ordered that the plea be withdrawn.

Although the restitution statute makes restitution mandatory, a defendant must be advised of the possibility of having to pay restitution in order for a plea to be valid. The Court specifically required that the defendant be warned on the record of the possibility of having to pay restitution, and the Court also required that the sentencing court follow the procedures specified by the statute, meaning a court is required to hold a hearing and determine the amount of restitution at the time of sentencing. Because Rotola was never informed that he would have to pay restitution, his plea was withdrawn and the court remanded the case for trial.

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers

If you are facing criminal charges, we can help. Our Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers have successfully defended thousands of clients at the trial level on appeal. We offer a complimentary 15-minute criminal defense strategy session to anyone who is under investigation or facing criminal charges. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.

Zak Goldstein 10/21/17 Zak Goldstein 10/21/17

Recent Case Results - Motion to Suppress and Speedy Trial Motions Granted

Award-Winning Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers

The Philadelphia criminal defense attorneys of Goldstein Mehta LLC continue to obtain outstanding results both in and out of the court room. Our defense lawyers have fought for successful outcomes in cases involving a wide variety of charges including robbery, burglary, assault, probation violations and probation detainers, and gun charges. Some of our recent success stories include:

Commonwealth v. G. – Motion to Suppress Confession for Lack of Miranda Warnings Granted in Shooting Case

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esq.

In Commonwealth v. G., Attorney Goldstein successfully moved for the suppression of an incriminating statement in a case in which the defendant was charged with gun charges including Violations of the Uniform Firearms Act (“VUFA”) Sections 6108, 6106, and 6105 as well as conspiracy, tampering with evidence, and recklessly endangering another person. The Commonwealth alleged that G. accompanied his co-defendants to a location where a shooting broke out. After the complainants returned fire and shot one of the co-defendants, G. allegedly took the gun and hid it. When G. went to visit his friend at the hospital, police arrested him and began interrogating him, resulting in a confession which implicated G. in hiding the gun.

Attorney Goldstein moved to suppress the statement and the firearm due to violations of the Miranda rule. Pennsylvania and federal law both require the police to read suspects their Miranda warnings prior to interrogating them. Prior to asking any questions which could lead to incriminating answers, police must advise a suspect who has been arrested and taken into custody that the suspect has:

The right to remain silent,
The right to an attorney and that the attorney will be paid for by the government if the suspect cannot afford an attorney, and
That anything the suspect says can be used against them in court.

Shortly before trial, prosecutors admitted that detectives had actually interrogated G. twice. First, they interrogated him immediately upon his arrival at the police station when they had not yet provided him with Miranda warnings at that time. After obtaining a confession, police quickly provided G. with Miranda warnings, questioned him again, and obtained a signed statement.

Attorney Goldstein successfully moved to have both statements suppressed due to detective’s failure to provide Miranda warnings prior to the first interrogation. Under federal law, police may not intentionally fail to provide Miranda warnings in order to obtain a confession, then provide warnings, and quickly re-interrogate the defendant after providing the warnings. Instead, federal courts have applied a sort of “good faith exception” when evaluating whether prosecutors may use a second, Mirandized statement which is substantially similar to a prior un-Mirandized statement. Where police make a mistake in failing to provide Miranda warnings or where the circumstances change enough so that the second statement is not directly related to the first, the statement may become admissible. The Commonwealth attempted to justify the failure to warn by arguing that it had been inadvertent and that there was a break in the chain between the first and second interrogations due to the passage of time.

Here, Attorney Goldstein successfully argued that the police intentionally failed to provide Miranda warnings during the first statement. Additionally, there was no break in the chain between the two interrogations. The second interrogation happened almost immediately, took place in the same location, and involved the same police detective. The trial court agreed and granted the Motion to Suppress, ruling that both statements could not be used at trial. Once the statements were excluded, the Commonwealth agreed that it would not appeal the court’s ruling if G. accepted a plea deal for a misdemeanor charge and probation. The successful Motion to Suppress helped G. avoid a felony gun conviction and years in state prison.

Commonwealth v. A. – Robbery, Burglary, and Assault Charges Dismissed for Speedy Trial Violation.

In Commonwealth v. A., Attorney Goldstein successfully moved to have all charges against the client dismissed due to the prosecution’s violation of Pennsylvania Speedy Trial Rules, specifiically Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 600(A). A. and a co-defendant were charged with dressing up as police officers and forcing their way into a massage parlor. Once inside, the defendants allegedly demanded money from the employees. The employees called the police, and the defendants were arrested inside the massage parlor. The Commonwealth immediately brought charges for robbery, burglary, assault, and other related charges.

Unfortunately for the prosecution, the Commonwealth brought the charges without completing its investigation. At the first trial listing, the Commonwealth was not prepared to proceed because it had improperly failed to turn over critical witness statements and evidence in advance of trial. The trial court marked the continuance as a Commonwealth continuance request, and by the time the second jury trial listing arrived, the defendant had been awaiting trial for two years.

Philadelphia Criminal Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esq.

Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 600(A) requires that all criminal defendants be brought to trial within 365 days of the filing of the criminal Complaint. There are exceptions for things like court continuances and circumstances outside of the prosecution’s control, but in order to qualify for an exception, the Commonwealth must show that its prosecutors acted with due diligence in prosecuting the case. In this case, Attorney Goldstein successfully argued that the judge at the first trial listing had already found that the prosecution acted without due diligence in failing to provide witness statements and other discovery materials in advance of the first trial date. Because the Commonwealth never asked the first judge to reconsider the ruling in writing, Rule 600 barred the Commonwealth from asking the new trial judge to reconsider the first judge’s ruling without some showing of obvious error on the part of the first judge. The court agreed and dismissed all of the charges in this extremely serious case.

Commonwealth v. M. – Car Theft Charges Dismissed at Preliminary Hearing

In Commonwealth v. M., the client was charged with multiple counts of Receiving Stolen Property, Theft by Unlawful Taking, Unauthorized Use of an Automobile, and Theft from a Motor Vehicle. Prosecutors alleged that in one case, M. stole the complainant’s car and drove it around for a night before leaving it abandoned on a nearby street. Further, numerous valuable items were missing from the car, leading to additional allegations that M. had stolen the items.

In a second case which had been joined for the preliminary hearing, prosecutors alleged that M. broke into a parked car, stole valuable items, and transported those items to his house. When prosecutors executed a search warrant on M.'s house, they found M. and another gentleman in the living room along with the stolen items. Neither man was closer to the items, said anything incriminating, or attempted to flee, and the other man's hospital ID had actually been found by police in the stolen car in the first case.

In both cases, the prosecution attempted to rely entirely on hearsay at the preliminary hearing under the Superior Court's opinion in Commonwealth v. Ricker. The prosecution sought to have a police detective, who had no personal knowledge of who took the car or took items from the other car, testify that a witness who failed to appear for court saw M. driving the car on the night in question.

Attorney Goldstein’s repeated objections to this hearsay testimony led to it being excluded from evidence at the preliminary hearing, and without the hearsay, the evidence was completely insufficient for the preliminary hearing judge to hold M. for court. This was particularly true in light of the fact that the other gentleman's hospital wristband was found by police in the stolen car. Accordingly, the court dismissed all charges against M. This case shows that even with the trend of judges permitting more and more hearsay at preliminary hearings, there are still limits. This is especially true in Philadelphia where judges tend to require that witnesses have some level of personal knowledge before they will hold a case for court.

Probation Detainers Lifted – In the last six weeks, our Philadelphia criminal defense attorneys have successfully moved to have probation detainers lifted for three separate clients who were on probation and subsequently arrested on new charges. This includes the lifting of a probation detainer for a client who was on probation for a gun charge and who was arrested on a new case of Possession with the Intent to Deliver.

State v. D. – Prosecution Agrees to Dismiss All Charges in New Jersey Prison Contraband Case

In State v. D., the client was charged with third degree indictable offenses in New Jersey for allegedly smuggling drugs into the prison during a visit with a friend. The prosecution obtained both video of the incident and phone calls which it claimed implicated D. in the offense. After convincing the Assistant Prosecutor that even if real, the phone calls would not be admissible against D. due to violations of New Jersey wiretap and recording laws, the prosecution agreed to dismiss all charges. D. will avoid a felony conviction and jail time.

Commonwealth v. K. – All Charges Dismissed in Third Strike Carjacking (Robbery of a Motor Vehicle) Case.

K. was charged with stealing his ex-girlfriend’s car by snatching the keys out of her hand and driving off in the car. Although this allegation would only have been Robbery as a felony of the second degree, the case became a third strike and a carjacking because of the fact that K. allegedly took a car. Carjacking (Robbery of a Motor Vehicle) is considered a crime of violence under Pennsylvania law for purposes of the three strikes rule. Due to prior convictions, K. would have faced a mandatory 25-50 years in prison if convicted of Robbery of a Motor Vehicle because carjacking is a “strike” case. Fortunately, our criminal defense attorneys were able to have all charges dismissed at the preliminary hearing level.

Commonwealth v. J. – Our criminal defense lawyers were able to successfully negotiate a misdemeanor offer of probation for a client who was initially charged with F1 Strangulation, Robbery, and Aggravated Assault. First, we were able to have the strangulation charge dismissed at the preliminary hearing and the other felonies graded as felonies of the second degree. Once the felonies were no longer F1 strike offenses, the Commonwealth’s offer substantially improved, and we were eventually able to negotiate a misdemeanor probationary offer for the client, thereby avoiding jail time and a felony conviction.

Criminal Defense Attorney Demetra P. Mehta, Esq.

Commonwealth v. A. – All charges against A. were dismissed after our defense lawyers negotiated for A. to participate in the domestic violence diversionary program. After A. completed community service, counseling, and paid a small fine, the Commonwealth withdrew Simple Assault, Terroristic Threats, and Recklessly Endangering Another Person charges against A.

Commonwealth v. R. - The client was arrested and charged with Robbery, Assault, and related charges while on probation for a serious offense. Because there was clear video of the incident occurring, the client was hoping to obtain a plea deal for the shortest possible sentence. The client's previous attorney had been unable to negotiate for anything less than a 1-2 year state prison sentence. After retaining Goldstein Mehta LLC, our defense lawyers were able to negotiate a sentence of 11.5 - 23 months with work release eligibility and no additional jail time on the direct probation violation.

Charged with a crime? Speak with a Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Today

Goldstein Mehta LLC Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers

If you are facing criminal charges or are interested in appealing a conviction, we can help. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers have successfully resolved countless cases at trial and on appeal. We offer a 15-minute criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to discuss your case with an experienced and understanding criminal defense attorney today.