Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog

Zak Goldstein 8/13/20 Zak Goldstein 8/13/20

PA Supreme Court: Commonwealth Bears Burden of Disproving Claim of Self-Defense in Gun Case

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Lineman, reaffirming its decision in Commonwealth v. Torres. The Supreme Court again held that if a criminal defendant properly raises the issue of self-defense, the Commonwealth has the burden of disproving that claim beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, it is not adequate for the fact-finder to merely disbelieve the defendant’s evidence of self-defense. The Commonwealth must produce actual evidence to counter a defendant’s self-defense claim. The Lineman decision is significant because it applies the logic of Torres to a possessory offense rather than just a crime of violence.

Commonwealth v. Lineman

A Philadelphia Police officer was on routine patrol when he received a radio call indicating that a male was screaming for assistance. The officer arrived on scene and observed the defendant and another male struggling on the ground. The defendant was lying on the ground with the other male on top of him. The officer ordered the male to get off the defendant. As the defendant began to stand he heard the sound of metal scraping the ground. The officer then looked at the defendant’s hand and saw that he was holding an Uzi. According to the officer, the defendant appeared to be under the influence of a controlled substance and was bleeding. The defendant was subsequently arrested for Violation of the Uniform Firearm Act § 6105 (“VUFA 6105”), Persons Prohibited from Possessing a Firearm.

The defendant elected to proceed by way of bench trial. At his trial, he testified in his own defense. Specifically, he testified that he and the other male had been drinking. Eventually, the other male became violent towards him and hit him in the face with the gun, which broke the defendant’s nose. The two then began to wrestle for the gun. The officer arrived while they were wrestling and this is what caused the fight to end. During closing arguments, defense counsel argued that the defendant was entitled to an acquittal because he raised the issue of self-defense and the Commonwealth did not present any evidence to rebut this claim as required by the case of Commonwealth v. Torres.

The trial court disagreed. The trial court stated that because this was a possessory offense, he could not raise a self-defense argument. The trial court did state that the defendant could raise a duress defense, but because he did not believe the defendant’s story it was not applicable to him. As such, he found the defendant guilty and sentenced him to three to seven years’ incarceration. The defendant then filed a timely appeal.

The Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. In its decision, the Superior Court found that because the defendant was still in possession of the firearm after the police officer broke up the fight, this was sufficient to convict him of the charge of VUFA 6105. Undeterred, the defendant then filed a petition for allowance of appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

Which side has to prove self-defense in Pennsylvania?

Commonwealth v. Torres is a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision that was decided in 2001. The basic facts of the case were that the police arrived at a house in Philadelphia, PA after they received a radio call. When the police arrived on scene, they met with the complainant who said that the defendant had hit him in the head with a wrench. The defendant was about a half block away from the scene when the police arrived. While investigating the scene, the police were unable to locate a wrench. The defendant was then subsequently arrested and charged with simple assault.

The complainant never appeared to court. Nonetheless, the Commonwealth still elected to prosecute the case against the defendant by calling the police officers who arrived on scene. The officers testified that the complainant said the defendant hit him with a wrench. In response, the defendant testified on his own behalf and stated that he was acting in self-defense. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court stated he disbelieved the defendant and found him guilty. The defendant then filed an appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court which affirmed his conviction. He then filed a petition for allowance of appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court which agreed to hear the case.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions and vacated the defendant’s conviction. The Court stated that when a defendant raises the issue of self-defense, the Commonwealth bears the burden to disprove that claim beyond a reasonable doubt. According to the Court, the Commonwealth must produce some evidence to dispute this claim. Further, the Court specifically stated that it is not sufficient for the trial court to not believe the defendant. Therefore, because there was no evidence on the record to contradict the defendant’s claim that he was acting in self-defense, the defendant’s conviction could not stand and thus was vacated. It is important to note that the defendant in Torres was not charged with a possessory offense (i.e. possessing a gun).

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Decision

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a slip opinion decision vacating the defendant’s conviction. In its opinion, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court specifically cited Commonwealth v. Torres as the reason why it was reversing the lower courts’ decisions. The Court did not provide any additional justification for its decision. Nonetheless, it is undisputed that the Court has now expanded Torres to include possessory offenses as well. As a matter of common sense, this decision makes sense. If someone is in danger and uses a weapon to protect themselves in self-defense, they should also be able to avoid a conviction for the possession of said weapon. Regardless of the logic of the decision, this decision is obviously favorable to the defendant because his conviction is now vacated, and he will be released from prison.

Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help.

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 7/14/20 Zak Goldstein 7/14/20

PA Superior Court: Acquittal on Underlying Reckless Endangerment Charge Does Not Prevent Conviction for Drug Delivery Resulting in Death

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorney Zak Goldstein

The Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Burton, holding that a defendant may be convicted of Drug Delivery Resulting in Death (“DRDD”) despite being acquitted on the charge of Recklessly Endangering Another Person (“REAP”) in the same trial. This decision is not surprising given that it has long been the rule that with few exceptions, inconsistent verdicts do not usually warrant a new trial. As many criminal defense attorneys can tell you, inexplicable verdicts are not uncommon in jury trials. Because the judge cannot question the jury regarding its motivation, the reasons for these verdicts are usually unknown. Sometimes they are reached out of leniency, while it is also possible that the jury just may not understand the law. Here, the defendant’s acquittal on the REAP charge did not require an acquittal on the related drug delivery resulting in death charge.

Commonwealth v. Burton

On January 29, 2016, police officers responded to a call for an unresponsive person in Pottstown, Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, the officers were too late. When they arrived, the unresponsive person unfortunately had died. The officers found a syringe on the floor near her body. They also found three blue wax bags from the scene which contained fentanyl. The officers also recovered the decedent’s cell phone and prescription pill bottles.

Between 7:00 p.m. and midnight on January 28, 2016, the decedent exchanged text messages with an individual named “Rachel” in her phone. It was later determined that “Rachel” was the defendant. According to a detective who reviewed the text messages and testified at the defendant’s trial, the conversation between the defendant and the decedent was indicative of arranging a drug transaction. The police also recovered surveillance footage that showed the defendant walking near the decedent’s building while talking on his phone. The video footage also showed the defendant entering and leaving the decedent’s house.

On June 22, 2016, the defendant was arrested and charged with DRDD, REAP, criminal use of a communication facility, and possession with the intent to deliver a controlled substance (“PWID”). The defendant filed a motion to suppress the subscriber information relating to his cell phone which was denied by the trial court. Following a two-day trial, a jury found the defendant guilty of DDRD, criminal use of a criminal facility, and PWID. Notably, the jury acquitted the defendant on the REAP charge. On October 31, 2018, the trial court sentenced the defendant to an aggregate term of 13 to 35 years in a state correctional institution. The defendant then filed a timely appeal. On appeal, the defendant argued that he could not have been convicted of DDRD because he was acquitted on the charge of REAP.

What is Drug Delivery Resulting in Death in PA?

The crime of DDRD is governed by 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 2506. The statute provides:

A person commits a felony of the first degree if the person intentionally administers, dispenses, delivers, gives, prescribes, sells or distributes any controlled substance or counterfeit controlled substance in violation of section 13(a)(14) or (30) of the act of April 14, 1972 (P.L. 233, No. 64),1known as The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, and another person dies as a result of using the substance.

The crime of DRDD is unique because unlike most crimes, it has two separate mental states that the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt to convict the defendant. First, the defendant must have intentionally sold the contraband. Next, the death of the decedent must be the reckless result of the actions of the defendant. Further, the penalty for DRDD can be quite severe. If a defendant is convicted of DDRD, they can face a maximum sentence of forty years. Although DRDD is not usually charged in Philadelphia state court, it is a very common charge in the surrounding counties (i.e. Bucks County) and is particularly serious when charged in federal court. Therefore, if you are charged with DDRD it is imperative that you have a highly skilled attorney representing you.

The Superior Court’s Decision

The Superior Court rejected the defendant’s argument that he could not be convicted of DRDD because he was acquitted on the charge of REAP. Unfortunately, these confusing and inconsistent jury verdicts are fairly common, and appellate courts are extremely reluctant to apply an acquittal on one charge to prevent a conviction on another except under extremely limited circumstances. Here, the Superior Court expressly rejected the argument that REAP is a lesser included offense of DDRD. The Superior Court found that the recklessness mental state is satisfied by the delivery of a drug whose dangers are widely known. Fentanyl is widely known to be extremely dangerous and frequently results in overdoses. Therefore, the defendant’s conviction for DRDD will stand, and he will be forced to serve his sentence.

Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help.

Zak Goldstein 6/8/20 Zak Goldstein 6/8/20

PA Superior Court: Trial Judge Improperly Usurped Role of Jury By Deciding Gradation of Witness Intimidation Charge

Philadelphia Criminal Lawyer Zak Goldstein

The Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Raymond, holding that the trier of fact must make a specific finding of how the defendant “intimidated” a witness before the trial court can impose an enhanced felony gradation for the charge at sentencing. The Superior Court rejected the Commonwealth’s argument that the court could decide the gradation itself in the absence of a specific ruling from the jury.

Commonwealth v. Raymond

Philadelphia police charged the defendant with intimidation of a witness, retaliation against a witness, and possession of an instrument of a crime (“PIC”) based on his interactions with the complainant. Prior to the initiation of this case, the complainant had cooperated with law enforcement officials who charged the defendant’s friend with first degree murder. At the preliminary hearing for the murder case, the complainant testified that the defendant’s friend murdered the victim in that case.

The defendant and the complainant knew each other because they had lived in the same neighborhood for years. As the complainant had agreed to testify against the defendant’s friend at his murder trial, the complainant was placed in a witness protection program and relocated to another neighborhood approximately ten to fifteen minutes away. The complainant testified that he was concerned for his safety in his former neighborhood and no longer kept in contact with friends there because he had been labeled a snitch.

Shortly before the murder trial, the complainant was outside with his wife and his daughter at his residence when the defendant approached in his vehicle. After the defendant exited the vehicle and greeted the complainant’s family, the complainant’s wife and daughter went inside the residence. While the two men were alone, the defendant told the complainant that “I know where you was at. I would have done reach out and touched you, but I wanted to give you an opportunity to make shit right.” The complainant interpreted the defendant’s statement as an effort to convince him not to testify at the murder trial. The complainant then subsequently asked the defendant to leave. The defendant then said that “I’ve been up to the prison to see [defendant’s friend]. I know everything. And you got to make this shit right.”

The complainant then went inside his residence. He watched from his window as the defendant went back to his car, grabbed a black firearm, and tucked it under his shirt. The defendant then said “what are you gonna do?” while he placed his hand on his gun. After the complainant shut his door, he heard the defendant say “I know where you’re at.” The defendant then drove away.

After the defendant drove away, he called the complainant’s cell phone and stated “I shouldn’t have came. I don’t want you to feel threatened.” The defendant then stated that he did not want to be involved as the matter was between the complainant and his friend. As a result of this incident, the complainant relocated his family again to an unspecified address, which required his daughter to change schools. The complainant testified against the defendant’s friend, and that person was convicted of murder.

After the murder trial, the complainant testified about two incidents that occurred that made him feel he was being retaliated against for his testifying against defendant’s friend. First, he saw two men in a van parked outside of his home. One of the men was the defendant’s friend from his old neighborhood. Additionally, the complainant also found a dead bird on his doorstep. This was symbolic because the defendant’s nickname was tweet. The defendant, however, was in custody during both of these incidents.

The defendant went to trial with a jury. The above testimony was presented and he was convicted of all charges with the exception of PIC. It should be noted that there was not a specific finding by the jury as to how the defendant “intimidated” the complainant. This is important because intimidation has various subsections which trigger different gradations - it can range from a misdemeanor carrying only a few years in prison to a felony for which someone can get twenty years.

After his conviction, he filed a motion for extraordinary relief arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support either of his convictions. Regarding the witness intimidation charge, the defendant was originally charged under §4952(a)(1) which, as shown below, does not fit the facts that the Commonwealth alleged. The defendant also argued that there was no evidence to show that he made a specific threat or used violence to retaliate against the complainant for testifying at his friend’s preliminary hearing and thus there was insufficient evidence to convict him of that charge. The trial court agreed that there was insufficient evidence to convict him for the retaliation against a witness charge, however it denied the defendant’s motions on the intimidation of a witness charge. At his sentencing, the defendant was sentenced to six to twelve years’ incarceration. The defendant then filed a timely post-sentence motion which was denied. He then filed a timely appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

What is an Intimidation of a Witness Charge in Pennsylvania?

The charge of intimidation of a witness is governed by 18 Pa C.S.A. § 4952. The statute provides that a person can be guilty of intimidating a witness:

if with the intent to or with the knowledge that his conduct will obstruct, impede, impair, prevent, or interfere with the administration of justice he intimidates or attempts to intimidate any witness or victim to” do any of the following:

Refrain from informing or reporting to any law enforcement officer, prosecuting official or judge concerning any information, document or thing relating to the commission of a crime.
Give any false or misleading information or testimony relating to the commission of any crime to any law enforcement officer, prosecuting official or judge.
Withhold any testimony, information, document or thing relating to the commission of a crime from any law enforcement officer, prosecuting official or judge.
Give any false or misleading information or testimony or refrain from giving any testimony, information, document or thing, relating to the commission of a crime, to an attorney representing a criminal defendant.
Elude, evade or ignore any request to appear or legal process summoning him to appear to testify or supply evidence.
Absent himself from any proceeding or investigation to which he has been legally summoned.

The penalty for being found guilty of intimidating a witness can be very severe. 18 Pa C.S.A. § 4952 (b)(1) lists how the charge of witness intimidation may be graded:

The offense is a felony of the degree indicated in paragraphs (2) through (4) if:
The actor employs force, violence or deception, or threatens to employ force or violence, upon the witness or victim or, with the requisite intent or knowledge upon any other person.
The actor offers any pecuniary or other benefit to the witness or victim or, with the requisite intent or knowledge, to any other person.
The actor's conduct is in furtherance of a conspiracy to intimidate a witness or victim.
The actor accepts, agrees or solicits another to accept any pecuniary or other benefit to intimidate a witness or victim.
The actor has suffered any prior conviction for any violation of this section or any predecessor law hereto, or has been convicted, under any Federal statute or statute of any other state, of an act which would be a violation of this section if committed in this State.
The offense is a felony of the first degree if a felony of the first degree or murder in the first or second degree was charged in the case in which the actor sought to influence or intimidate a witness or victim as specified in this subsection.
The offense is a felony of the second degree if a felony of the second degree is the most serious offense charged in the case in which the actor sought to influence or intimidate a witness or victim as specified in this subsection.
The offense is a felony of the third degree in any other case in which the actor sought to influence or intimidate a witness or victim as specified in this subsection.
Otherwise the offense is a misdemeanor of the second degree.

The statute requires the Commonwealth to prove specific things in order to obtain an enhanced sentence. If the Commonwealth wants the witness intimidation charge to be graded as a felony of the first degree, it is not sufficient to show that the underlying case was also listed as felony of the first degree or a murder, but they must also show that the defendant “intimidated” the witness in one of the enumerated ways listed in 18 Pa C.S.A. § 4952 (b)(1)(i)-(iv). In the instant case, the defendant argued that because the jury did not specifically find which way the defendant “intimidated” the witness, he was entitled to the least severe grading which is a misdemeanor of the second degree.

The Superior Court’s Decision

The Superior Court agreed with the defendant that his conviction should have been graded as a misdemeanor of the second degree. The reason is because the jury did not make a specific finding as to how the defendant “intimidated” the complainant. Per 18 Pa C.S.A. § 4952 (b)(1), a criminal defendant can only receive an enhanced grading if the trier of fact finds that the defendant “intimidated” a witness through one of those enumerated points. Because the jury did not make a specific finding of how the defendant “intimidated” the complainant, his conviction could not be upgraded to the higher grading. Therefore, the trial court should have found that it was a misdemeanor and sentenced him to a maximum of two years’ incarceration.

Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help.

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Lawyers in Philadelphia

Zak Goldstein 5/24/20 Zak Goldstein 5/24/20

PA Supreme Court: Reckless Introduction of False Evidence Bars Retrial of Wrongfully Convicted Defendant

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Johnson, holding that the Pennsylvania Constitution’s Double Jeopardy Clause bars a retrial where the original conviction was based on false evidence and prosecutorial misconduct occurred in the form of prosecutors acting recklessly with respect to seeking the admission of the false evidence. This is an important case which sharpens the teeth of PA’s Double Jeopardy Clause and which provides some accountability for prosecutors who introduce evidence at trial that turns out to be false.

The Facts of Johnson

In Johnson, the victim, Walter Smith, told the police that a man named Clinton Robinson had killed a woman named Margaret Thomas. Later that year, Smith was shot and killed outside of a Philadelphia bar. Based on the ballistics evidence, police believed that there were multiple shooters. Police also found a red baseball cap near Smith’s body.

Debbie Williams, a friend of Smith’s, went to the police station and made a statement to Philadelphia police. She claimed that as they left the bar, there were numerous people outside on the sidewalk or in the street. A man who was wearing a red article of clothing pushed past her towards Smith. She heard shots, so she ducked, and she did not see the shooting. She then saw people run away. After the gunshots, she saw the person who had been wearing the red hat run past her, as well. She went to Smith’s body and picked up his baseball hat, which had a hole in it. The police arrived soon thereafter and took her to the station. She gave the hat to the police.

The case was not solved until 2005. In 2005, a jailhouse informant named Bryant Younger, who was under indictment in a federal drug case, told police that he heard the defendant, who was also in custody, make statements implicating himself in Smith’s murder. The police obtained the defendant’s DNA and compared it to DNA recovered from the red hat. They found that there was a match.

The Commonwealth then somehow got confused and failed to realize that there were two hats – a red hat which was found in the street, and a black hat which Smith had been wearing. The black hat had been tested and in fact had Smith’s blood and DNA on it, and the red hat had the defendant’s DNA on it. But somehow the Commonwealth believed that there was one hat with both men’s DNA on it. The Commonwealth arrested the defendant and charged him with first-degree murder, conspiracy, and possessing an instrument of crime. The case went to trial, and at trial, the Commonwealth’s crucial piece of evidence was the red hat with the DNA on it.

However, due to the Commonwealth’s apparent confusion, the prosecutor argued that the shooter, who was wearing the red hat, must have gotten in close to Smith and shot him, leading both to his own DNA being on the red hat as well as Smith’s blood. This was wrong because Smith’s blood was not actually on the red hat; it was on the black hat.

Nonetheless, the DNA analyst also testified that Smith’s blood and the defendant’s DNA were both found on “the hat.” The defendant’s attorney somehow never challenged the underlying premise that there were two hats. He argued that the DNA may not have been reliable and that no one actually saw the defendant commit the shooting. The prosecution emphasized that the decedent’s blood was on the same hat as the defendant’s DNA in closing argument. The jury convicted, and the court sentenced the defendant to death.

The Post-Conviction Relief Act Litigation

The defendant eventually filed a PCRA Petition after his attorneys uncovered the fact that there had been two hats and the decedent’s blood was only on the black hat. The Commonwealth agreed that the defendant should receive a new trial and also agreed not to seek the death penalty. The court granted a new trial.

Discovery Motions and Double Jeopardy Motions

The defendant then began filing discovery motions based on the finding of the two hats. The motion eventually evolved into a motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds due to prosecutorial misconduct in introducing false evidence – the false evidence being that there was only one hat. This led to various evidentiary hearings at which the prosecutors and detectives involved in the original trial had to testify. It quickly became clear to the court that the Commonwealth had not intentionally misstated the evidence but had gotten confused and believed that there was only one hat. Some police officers, however, had also exaggerated the evidence if not completely misstated it.

Following the evidentiary hearing, the defendant moved to dismiss the case. One officer had exaggerated the extent to which he saw blood stains on the red hat, and the other detectives and prosecutors believed that there was only one hat despite the fact that the Commonwealth clearly had two hats in its possession with separate property receipt numbers. He argued that regardless of whether the mistake was intentional or reckless, he had to spend nine years on death row, and the case should therefore be dismissed. The Commonwealth agreed that mistakes were made, but it argued that the mistakes had not been intentional, so it should be permitted to retry the defendant.

The trial court denied the motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds. It found that the Commonwealth had acted recklessly, not intentionally, and because the Commonwealth had not acted in bad faith, the double jeopardy clause did not apply. It did, however, permit the defendant to appeal prior to the re-trial by finding that such an appeal would not be frivolous. The Superior Court affirmed, and the defendant appealed further to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The Supreme Court accepted the case and reversed the conviction.

The Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Court barred the prosecution of the defendant and dismissed the charges against him.

First, it accepted the trial court’s findings that prosecutors had not acted intentionally but had acted either recklessly or with gross negligence. They had not conspired to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, but they had made so many inexplicable mistakes that the mistakes rose to a level of more than just ordinary negligence.

Second, the Court found that the Pennsylvania Constitution provides greater protections than the United States Constitution. Federal appellate courts have found that the United States Constitution requires intentional misconduct in order for the double jeopardy clause to apply and bar a retrial. But the Supreme Court found that Pennsylvania’s Constitution bars a retrial where the first conviction was vacated as a result of prosecutorial misconduct that occurred recklessly.

The purpose of the double jeopardy clause is not only to penalize prosecutorial error, but also to protect citizens from the embarrassment, expense, and ordeal of a second trial for the same offense. It should also prevent compelling them to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent they may be found guilty.

When the government engages in improper actions sufficiently damaging to undercut the fairness of a trial, it does not matter much to the defendant whether the prosecution did it on purpose. Therefore, the double jeopardy clause applies to bar retrial both when the prosecution acts intentionally as well as recklessly. Because the prosecution here clearly acted recklessly, the Commonwealth could not re-try the defendant, and the Court dismissed the case.

Do you need a criminal lawyer in Philadelphia, PA? 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, DUI, 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.