Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog

Zak Goldstein 11/3/19 Zak Goldstein 11/3/19

Attorney Goldstein Wins Aggravated Assault (F1) Jury Trial

Philadelphia criminal defense lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire recently won a full acquittal in a jury trial on Aggravated Assault charges in the case of Commonwealth v. J.B. Prosecutors charged J.B. with Aggravated Assault (F1), Aggravated Assault (F2), Simple Assault, Possession of an Instrument of Crime, and Recklessly Endangering Another Person, for an incident in which J.B. cut the complainant on her face and hands with a knife. In J.B., the Commonwealth alleged that J.B. and the complainant were roommates who had gotten into a fight after a dispute relating to damage to the complainant’s car. At some point, the fight allegedly escalated from a fist fight when J.B. pulled a switchblade knife and began stabbing the complainant. The complainant then pulled out a machete and began assaulting J.B. with the machete. However, the complainant was the first person to call police, so the police arrested J.B. and recommended that charges be filed against her.

J.B. retained Attorney Goldstein for trial, and J.B. proceeded to trial in front of a Philadelphia jury on a theory of self-defense. Attorney Goldstein’s cross-examination of the complainant on her motive to have started the fight and then lied about it, the fact that she inflicted serious injuries on J.B., and the fact that she is the type of person who carries a machete around quickly convinced the jury that J.B. had acted in self-defense and that the complainant had really been the aggressor. Attorney Goldstein was able to successfully argue to the jury that the complainant had actually been the first person to pull a knife and then had simply won the race to the police and that the police had filed charges without even giving J.B. and her witness the opportunity to tell them what had really happened. Accordingly, the jury deliberated for approximately two hours before acquitting J.B. of all charges. J.B. will be eligible to have all of the charges expunged from her record.

The key to defense in this case was the evidence that J.B. had preserved shortly after the incident. Fortunately, J.B. had documented her injuries by taking high-quality photographs which were extremely compelling. The defense was also able to obtain a copy of the 911 call (which the police would otherwise destroy within thirty days), and the 911 call showed that J.B. had also called police and that police could be heard arresting her without giving her a chance to tell them what happened. Finally, J.B. had preserved important text messages between her and the complainant which showed that J.B. had been trying to resolve the car situation and made it more likely that the complainant was the aggressor. These key pieces of evidence illustrate the importance of speaking with one of our experienced criminal defense attorneys right away if you are facing criminal charges or may be under investigation. Had J.B. waited to retain counsel, this valuable evidence could have been lost. Fortunately, J.B. was fully acquitted of these serious assault charges.

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers Zak Goldstein and Demetra Mehta

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

PA Superior Court Finds Trial Court Properly Dismissed Circumstantial First Degree Murder Case

The Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Perez, holding that the evidence that was presented at the preliminary hearing was not sufficient to force the defendant to face trial for the charges of first degree murder and possession of an instrument of a crime. The evidence that was presented against the defendant was entirely circumstantial, and the Court ultimately ruled that it was simply not enough to show even at a preliminary hearing that the defendant probably killed the complainant. This case is important because it shows that the preliminary hearing judge or magistrate should not simply approve charges merely because the Commonwealth has filed them. instead, the judge should review the evidence and determine whether there is really enough for the case to proceed to the trial level.

Commonwealth v. Perez

Two men went to a bar in Philadelphia. When they arrived, the defendant was also there. While one of the men was talking to a friend, the eventual-victim was dancing with a woman about five to eight feet away from the defendant. At approximately 1:50 AM, a bouncer spotted the victim and the defendant pushing one another. The two men were shoving one another in the center of two groups, comprised of between five and fifteen people each, when the bouncer stepped in and separated them. The victim told the bouncer that he and the defendant knew each other and that everything was “cool.”

A few minutes later, the decedent and the defendant were shoving one another again. The bouncer saw the defendant make a movement towards the victim’s neck, but he did not see the defendant actually stab the victim, nor did he observe a weapon of any kind in the defendant’s hands. However, when the bouncer and a colleague stepped in to break up the second shoving match, he noticed that the victim was holding his neck and that blood began “gushing out.” The victim’s friend only noticed something was wrong when the two bouncers moved to separate the victim and the defendant.

The friend then tried to speak with the victim outside of the bar, but the victim was unable to speak due to the severity of the wound. The friend applied pressure on the wound to stop the bleeding. Shortly after doing this, the friend saw the defendant exit the bar. According to the friend, the defendant had blood on his shirt. As such, the friend approached the defendant and punched him in the face because he believed that he was the cause of the victim’s injuries. The defendant then went back into the bar.

Later in the night, the bouncer saw the defendant walking around the bar in a tank top. The bouncer then approached the defendant and asked him why he was not wearing a shirt. The defendant stated that he took off the shirt and threw it in the trashcan after it got covered in blood. The defendant was then detained by the bar’s security not because of the incident, but because he owed $600 on his tab.

At approximately 2:00 AM, a pedestrian alerted a Philadelphia Police Officer of the stabbing. Upon entering the bar, the staff directed the officer to the defendant. The defendant was sitting alone at a table. The defendant was asked if he was involved in a fight. He denied being involved. He was also asked why he was not wearing a shirt. The defendant then showed the officer his bloody shirt. The officer then asked the defendant how he got blood on his shirt and he responded that he got hit. The defendant was subsequently arrested. The police were unable to find the weapon that was used to cut the victim’s throat.

The victim died at the hospital later that day. The medical examiner’s officer determined that his death was caused from a stab wound he sustained to his neck, which severed his jugular vein and trachea. The defendant was then charged with first-degree murder and possession of an instrument of a crime. On March 22, 2017, a preliminary hearing was held. At the hearing, the above facts were introduced into evidence. Additionally, the Commonwealth moved several exhibits into evidence including a DNA laboratory report indicating that the blood found on the defendant’s shirt belonged to the victim. At the conclusion of the hearing, the municipal court judge dismissed the charges for lack of evidence. The Commonwealth refiled charges later that day. The defendant’s case was then brought before the Court of Common Pleas where a different judge again dismissed the case for lack of evidence. The Commonwealth then filed a timely appeal.

What Happens at a Preliminary Hearing?

In Philadelphia, a defendant is only entitled to a preliminary hearing if he or she is charged with a felony. The purpose of the preliminary hearing is to determine whether the Commonwealth has made out a prima facie case for the offenses charged. A prima facie case consists of evidence, read in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, that sufficiently establishes both the commission of a crime and that the accused is probably the perpetrator of that crime. Further, at these hearings, the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth. At these hearings, the Commonwealth need not prove the elements of the charged crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, the prima facie evidence standard requires evidence of the existence of each and every element of the crime charged. Finally, and understandably very frustratingly, credibility of the evidence are not factors at this stage. With all of that being said, practically speaking, it is a much easier for the Commonwealth to get a case through the preliminary hearing level than it is for the Commonwealth to obtain a conviction.

The Superior Court’s Decision

The Commonwealth appealed the dismissal of the charges, and the Superior Court upheld the dismissal of the charges against the defendant. Although the Superior Court acknowledged that the Commonwealth has a very low burden to meet at these hearings, the evidence that was presented was simply not sufficient. The Superior Court highlighted that the defendant cooperated with the police, did not leave the scene, and denied his involvement in a fight on the night in question. Further, the Superior Court rejected the Commonwealth’s argument that only the defendant could have committed this crime. In its decision, the Superior Court emphasized that the bouncer did not actually witness the decedent get stabbed nor did he see the defendant with a weapon. As such, the evidence that was presented was not sufficient to establish that the defendant probably committed the crimes of first degree murder and possession of an instrument of a crime. Therefore, the defendant will not have to go to trial on these charges.

Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help.

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers Demetra Mehta and Zak Goldstein

Zak Goldstein 9/28/19 Zak Goldstein 9/28/19

PA Superior Court: Trial Court Abused Discretion in Dismissing Case Due to Witnesses Being Late

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein

The Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Ligon, holding that the trial court abused its discretion when it dismissed a criminal case due to the late arrival of witnesses despite the fact that the prosecutor indicated that he was ready to begin the trial and that they were on their way.

Commonwealth v. Ligon

Philadelphia police arrested the defendant in March 2012 and charged him with multiple crimes, including charges of robbery, burglary, aggravated assault, and various violations of the Uniform Firearms Act. The charges stemmed from an alleged incident that took place in September 2011 involving a Mr. Brady and his grandmother Ms. Martin.

The defendant’s case would be subsequently continued five times before his preliminary hearing was held and the municipal court judge found that there was enough evidence to go to trial on the charges. After his preliminary hearing, his case was then assigned to a Court of Common Pleas judge. When it reached the trial room, his case again was continued a “copious” amount of times. Eventually, his case again was continued and then reassigned to a different trial judge. This trial judge then granted two more continuances, one due to a court conflict and one because the assigned prosecutor had another trial.

The trial finally began on December 5, 2016 and on that day, the parties picked a jury. The following morning, before the jury came into the courtroom, the assigned prosecutor told the trial court that the complaining witnesses had not arrived. The prosecutor stated that although she had arranged a ride for the complaining witnesses, they did not answer the door. The prosecutor further stated that she had been in constant contact with them, having spoken with both the day before trial and having met with one of them on the Friday preceding trial. Based on these conversations, the prosecutor asked for “a little bit more time” for the witnesses to arrive. The trial court said that it could “probably give [the Commonwealth] till 11 [AM].”

When the court reconvened at 11:00 AM, a different prosecutor addressed the court and explained that the probation officer of Mr. Brady was attempting to contact him and that the Commonwealth had arranged for additional transportation to get him because Mr. Brady was in a wheelchair. The trial court then stated that it would recess the proceedings until 11:45 AM. At 12:00 PM, the assigned prosecutor stated that the witnesses were “on their way” and that she was ready to proceed with trial and asked if she could begin with her opening statement. The trial court replied that the witnesses were supposed to be there at 9:30 AM. The prosecutor then repeated that the witnesses were on their way. She then stated that she could do the opening statement and then put on another witness by the end of which she was “absolutely certain” the complaining witnesses would arrive. The trial court declined to allow the prosecutor to proceed with her case and discharged the case against the defendant. The Commonwealth then filed a timely appeal, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion when it discharged the case against the defendant.

What is the Abuse of Discretion Standard?

It can often be difficult for an appellant to win a case on an abuse of discretion standard. The abuse of discretion standard requires appellate courts to give great deference to the trial court in making its decision. As stated in a recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court case, an abuse of discretion only occurs “where the trial court misapplies the law, or where the judgment is exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will.” Further, appellate courts are not supposed to step in the shoes of the trial court. As such, this standard can be very difficult to win under, and usually the appellate courts will defer to the trial court. It is worth noting that it is usually defendants who, on appeal, argue that the trial court abused its discretion.

The Superior Court’s Decision

The Superior Court held that the trial court abused its discretion when it discharged the case against the defendant. In its brief opinion, the Superior Court stated that a trial court must take into account the public interest when determining whether to dismiss a case. The Superior Court stated that the trial court did not do this. The Superior Court’s opinion omits any real discussion on why the public interest was harmed by the dismissal of this case. Further, the Superior Court essentially stated that trial courts are to assume that prosecutors are telling the truth when they say they will be ready for a case.

Further, the Superior Court cited Commonwealth v. Carson in support of its position that the trial court abused its discretion. Carson is easily distinguishable from the instant case. In Carson, the trial court stated the reason the case was discharged was because of its court schedule and specifically chastised the Allegheny District Attorney’s Office for its tardiness and its excuses. In the instant case, the trial court did not state its schedule was the reason why the case was being discharged. It stated that the case had not gone to trial in the 1,782 days after the complaint had been filed. Further, it ignored the fact that the Commonwealth offered no corroborative evidence that their witnesses were actually coming to court. As such, the only evidence to support this was the Commonwealth’s representations. Nonetheless, the Superior Court still found that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the case and therefore the defendant will have to face trial for these charges (assuming the witnesses actually show up to court).

Facing criminal charge? We can help.

Criminal Defense Attorneys Zak Goldstein and Demetra Mehta

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 state and federal 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 9/16/19 Zak Goldstein 9/16/19

PA Superior Court: No New Trial Even Though Judge Was Stealing Cocaine from Evidence Storage

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Urwin, holding that the defendant should not receive a new trial in his Murder case despite the fact that the trial judge was later convicted of stealing cocaine from evidence around the time that the judge presided over the case. The Court found that the defendant failed to successfully prove that the judge was actually under the influence at the time of the trial, and therefore the judge’s ongoing thefts did not necessarily mean that the judge was unfair during the trial.

Commonwealth v. Urwin

The decedent’s body was discovered in a field in Washington County in February 1977. The police determined that the cause of death was blunt force trauma to the head. The investigators were able to locate her clothing which was scattered nearby and the police seized it as evidence. The victim was last seen with the defendant and a Mr. Davoli, however the charges against Mr. Davoli were dismissed at the preliminary hearing. At the time, the defendant was not charged with her death.

The case remained unsolved for several decades until the victim’s clothing was submitted for DNA testing in 2009. The results of the testing contained the profiles of both the defendant and Mr. Davoli. The police then questioned Mr. Davoli, and he confessed to his and the defendant’s involvement in the victim’s death. The defendant was subsequently arrested and charged with first degree murder. The defendant was very concerned about proceeding by way of jury trial because he thought that female jurors would not be sympathetic to him. As such, the defendant elected to have a bench trial in front of the Honorable Paul Pozonsky.

At his trial, Mr. Davoli testified against the defendant. He testified that he and the defendant each had sex with the victim and then the defendant dragged her from the vehicle and beat her with a car tool. The court convicted the defendant of third-degree murder and sentenced him to 10-20 years’ incarceration. The defendant then appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. The Superior Court affirmed his sentence and, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied his petition for allowance of appeal.

The PCRA Petition

The defendant then filed a timely Post-Conviction Relief Act (hereinafter “PCRA”) petition. In his PCRA petition, he raised several claims based on trial counsel’s alleged errors. He also asserted that Judge Pozonsky had been convicted of theft of cocaine and that he had been using cocaine during the trial. Specifically, Judge Pozonsky would order police to deposit cocaine in the evidence locker in his courtroom and then take it it for his personal use. The defendant therefore argued that he had an incompetent tribunal which violated his right to due process. A different judge presided over the PCRA litigation, and that judge ordered a hearing at which the defendant’s trial counsel and other witnesses testified.

During the hearing, the witnesses were asked about Judge Pozonsky’s behavior during the trial. The defendant’s sister testified and said that Judge Pozonsky was “acting funny” and “not paying attention to the proceedings.” Additionally, the defendant’s trial counsel stated that although Judge Pozonsky acted not as one might expect a judge to act, he dismissed it “because he always appeared that way.” Further, the Assistant District Attorney who prosecuted the defendant’s case stated that Judge Pozonsky’s behavior was “consistent” with the other experiences he has had with the judge over the years. Ultimately, the defendant’s PCRA petition was denied because he failed to adequately show that Judge Pozonsky was under the influence of cocaine during his trial. The defendant then filed a timely appeal.

Can You File a PCRA Petition Because of a Judge’s Actions?

Sometimes. Typically, PCRA petitions allege either after-discovered evidence or ineffective assistance of counsel. However, the PCRA statute is not limited to just those two avenues of relief. 42 Pa C.S.A. § 9543 (a)(2)(i) allows a defendant to get relief if “[a] violation of the Constitution of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States, which in the circumstances of the particular case, so undermined the truth-determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place.” In the instant case, the defendant argued that he should receive a new trial because Judge Pozonsky was using cocaine during his trial and this undermined the reliability of his conviction.

The Superior Court’s Decision

The Superior Court denied the defendant’s appeal. The Superior Court agreed with the PCRA court that the defendant had not met his burden. The Superior Court found that Judge Pozonsky was not addicted to cocaine even though he would regularly order police officers to deposit cocaine in an evidence locker in his courtroom and would use this cocaine for his personal use. The Superior Court cited Judge Pozonsky’s disbarment opinion as evidence that he was not addicted to cocaine. Therefore, the Superior Court determined that the defendant’s claim that Judge Pozonsky was high during his trial as “speculative at best.” As such, the defendant was not entitled to relief, and he will have to serve his sentence barring further appeals.

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 and dismissals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, 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.