Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog

Zak Goldstein 5/26/21 Zak Goldstein 5/26/21

PA Supreme Court: Rape Shield Law Bars Evidence of Complainant's Prostitution Conviction

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Rogers, holding that a defendant may not introduce evidence of a complainant’s prior conviction for prostitution to corroborate his testimony that he did not sexually assault the complainant, but rather merely engaged in paid sexual encounter. This decision addresses Pennsylvania’s Rape Shield Law, which is a powerful law that restricts a defendant’s ability to cross-examine complainants and introduce evidence to show that the challenged sex act may have been consensual. The law shields otherwise relevant evidence from the juries and often makes it difficult to defend against rape allegations even from those who have made false allegations before.

Commonwealth v. Rogers

The defendant physically and sexually assaulted five women over the course of a ten-month period in Philadelphia. The defendant was charged with dozens of crimes, including rape, robbery, and involuntary deviate sexual intercourse. The charges were consolidated for trial. In a pretrial motion in limine, the defendant sought permission to introduce evidence that two of his victims had a history of convictions for prostitution in the general area where the incidents occurred. The defendant wanted to use these convictions to show that his encounters, with these particular women, were consensual acts of prostitution.

In his filings, the defendant acknowledged that the existence of the Rape Shield Law (which generally prohibits the introduction of a complainant’s past sexual history), but argued that the Rape Shield Law did not prohibit the introduction of this evidence. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion because “none of the convictions related to encounters with [the defendant].” The defendant then elected to proceed with a waiver trial. The complainants testified in detail about their assaults and how he also stole personal property from them. The defendant also testified. He testified that he had sexual relations with all the victims, but that all of them were consensual. For two of the victims, he stated that these were sex-for-money transactions. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court found him guilty of the aforementioned charges.

A sexually-violent predator hearing was subsequently held and the trial court determined that he qualified as such. At his sentencing hearing, the defendant was sentenced to a term of 55-170 years’ incarceration. The defendant then filed a post-sentence motion which was denied. The defendant then filed an appeal. On appeal, the defendant challenged his sentence, the weight of the evidence, and the denial of his motion in limine.

The Superior Court’s Decision

A three-judge panel of the Superior Court affirmed the defendant’s sentence. The Superior Court also denied the defendant’s appeal regarding his Rape Shield Law motion. Undeterred, the defendant filed a petition for allowance of appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed to hear the defendant’s appeal. For purposes of this blog, only the issue concerning the defendant’s motion in limine will be addressed.

What is the Rape Shield Law?

The Rape Shield Law prohibits the introduction of an alleged victims “past sexual conduct, past sexual victimization, allegations of past sexual victimization, opinion evidence of the alleged victim’s past sexual conduct, and reputation evidence of the alleged victim’s past sexual conduct.” The purpose of the Rape Shield Law is to prevent a trial from shifting its focus from whether the defendant committed the crimes he is accused of “to the virtue and chastity of the victim.” Nonetheless, it cannot be applied in a manner that violates the defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial, including his right to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.

As such, courts have sought to balance the defendant’s right to a fair trial, including his right to confront his accuser, against the state’s interests embodied in the Rape Shield Law. Consequently, courts have found the Rape Shield Law unconstitutional as applied in circumstances where the defendant seeks to introduce evidence for reasons unrelated to impugning the complainant’s character and when the probative value of that evidence outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice. Each case is very fact specific and courts across the country have decided analogous issues differently. For example, an appellate court in Massachusetts has held that a defendant can introduce evidence of a complainant’s prior prostitution convictions in some cases. However, the last Pennsylvania case to address this issue held that the Rape Shield Law barred the introduction of this type of evidence.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Decision

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied the defendant’s appeal. In its decision, the Supreme Court held that the Rape Shield Law typically only allows the introduction of a complainant’s prior sexual encounters to “demonstrate factual premises other than consent” i.e. that someone else committed the crime, the complainant was biased towards the defendant, or that the complainant had a motive to fabricate the charges. Consequently, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that “there is little doubt that the proofs offered by [the defendant] were statutorily precluded.” The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the evidence the defendant sought to introduce was the very type of evidence that the Rape Shield Law is designed to preclude. Finally, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said that the lower court’s ruling did nothing to prohibit the defendant from establishing a consent defense. As such, the defendant will not get relief on this claim. However, he was successful on his other claim and his case was remanded back to the Superior Court to see if he is entitled to relief there.

Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help.

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Lawyers

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 5/24/21 Zak Goldstein 5/24/21

PA Superior Court: Defense Counsel Ineffective for Failing to Call Impeachment Witness in Rape Case

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein - Philadelphia, PA

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Orner, holding that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call a witness in a rape case. The defense witness would have testified that the complainant admitted to the witness that she fabricated the claims against the defendant and that the sexual acts between them were consensual. This case really is not surprising given the crucial nature of this type of testimony, but it is a reminder that defense attorneys need to be diligent in investigating their cases and presenting witnesses that are helpful to their defense at trial.

Commonwealth v. Orner

The complainant was celebrating New Years with her boyfriend and their neighbor, the defendant. All three were drinking heavily at the complainant’s house. At approximately 9:00 PM, the complainant reported going to bed while the defendant and her boyfriend left the complainant’s residence to continue drinking at the VFW. The defendant was unable to enter the VFW and parted ways with the boyfriend.

The defendant then returned to the complainant’s residence. The defendant was subsequently questioned by the police where he denied any sexual contact had occurred between him and the complainant. He did eventually concede that he touched the complainant’s vagina when he was confronted with a search warrant for a DNA test. The defendant denied raping the complainant and would later testify that he and the complainant had been engaged in a flirtatious affair and had been “messing around” for about a year. Upon reaching the residence, the defendant claimed that he performed oral sex on the complainant for two minutes, but stopped when she asked him to and left. The defendant asserted that all sexual contact between him and the complainant was consensual.

At trial, the complainant denied that she and the defendant were engaged in a romantic affair. She testified that she had been awoken to the defendant performing oral sex on her. She also testified that the defendant penetrated her with his penis and that the defendant fled the scene after she woke up. After the defendant left, the complainant called her boyfriend, and then she called 911. Officers responded about ten minutes later, and her boyfriend was still present at the house. The boyfriend testified that he was in an insane rage after hearing the allegations, but he did concede that he had previously sent a text message claiming that the defendant and the complainant had been engaged in affair two years prior to the allegations.

The defendant was eventually arrested and charged with numerous crimes including rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, sexual assault, and indecent assault. His first two trials ended in mistrials. During the third trial, defense counsel announced that he had failed to serve subpoenas on a married couple who would have been able to corroborate the defendant’s claims about his relationship with the complainant. A deputy sheriff was able to locate the husband, but the deputy could not locate the wife. The husband testified at trial and stated that the complainant had publicly expressed a desire to have sex with the defendant and had told his wife about her relationship with the defendant on the same day as he had supposedly raped the complainant. At the end of the trial, the defendant was found guilty of the aforementioned charges. The trial court sentenced the defendant to six to fourteen years’ incarceration. The defendant then filed a timely appeal. However, he withdrew his appeal.

The defendant filed a Post-Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) petition alleging that the trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call the wife to testify at his trial. The Court held an evidentiary hearing where both the trial attorney and the wife were called to testify. At this hearing, the wife testified that the defendant and the complainant had intended to rendezvous at the complainant’s residence while her boyfriend was drinking at the VFW. According to the wife, the defendant and the complainant were engaged in consensual sex, but they were interrupted when the boyfriend returned home. The defendant then fled the scene when the boyfriend arrived. The wife also testified that the complainant had given the defendant a key to her home and that she had confessed to her that she lied about the defendant raping her. Finally, the wife testified that had she been subpoenaed by the trial attorney she would have testified at the defendant’s trial.

The PCRA court granted the defendant’s petition and awarded him a new trial on the basis that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call the wife at trial. Specifically, the PCRA court concluded that the wife’s testimony was “crucial because it would have greatly supported [the defendant’s] defense” that the complainant consented to the sexual acts in question that night and had a motive to fabricate the rape charges. The Commonwealth then filed a timely appeal.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court’s Decision

The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the PCRA court’s decision. The Superior Court noted that the Commonwealth’s case against the defendant depended entirely upon the credibility of the complainant. If the wife had testified at trial, her testimony would have directly undermined the complainant’s credibility. The Superior Court ruled that the wife’s testimony was “unquestionably beneficial” to the defendant’s trial defense. Consequently, trial counsel’s failure to subpoena the wife deprived the defendant of crucial support for his proffered defense. Therefore, the defendant’s conviction is vacated, and he will get a new trial.

Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help.

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

NOT GUILTY: Attorney Goldstein Wins Rape Trial

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein

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

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

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

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

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

Zak Goldstein 4/27/21 Zak Goldstein 4/27/21

Third Circuit Court of Appeals: Brady Violation Does Not Bar Re-Trial in Federal Court

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has decided the case of United States v. Brown, holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution does not bar a subsequent prosecution when a prosecutor engages in prosecutorial misconduct by failing to provide exculpatory evidence prior to the first trial.

United States v. Brown

In 1995, firefighters responded to a fire at the defendant’s residence. At the time, the defendant was 17 years old, and he lived there with his mother and several family members. After arriving on scene, six firefighters entered the basement where the fire had originated. Several of the firefighters became trapped and died when a staircase collapsed. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”) opened an investigation. Chemical samples from the basement confirmed the presence of gasoline and investigators located a gas can close to what an expert testified was the fire’s origin. ATF concluded that the fire was intentionally set and offered a $15,000 reward for information leading to arrest and conviction. The police suspected the defendant started the fire at his mother’s direction to collect on a renter’s insurance policy.

The defendant was subsequently charged with three counts of second-degree murder, two counts of arson, and one count of insurance fraud in state court. Local, state, and federal authorities formed a joint prosecution team which consisted of an Assistant District Attorney for Allegheny County and an Assistant U.S. Attorney. At trial, the defendant argued that he could not have set the fire because he had been shopping with his mother when the fire started. However, the prosecutors called witnesses who came forward with testimony undermining the defendant’s alibi. During the trial, the witnesses denied receiving payment and that they were promised payment in exchange for their testimony. The jury found the defendant guilty of the aforementioned charges and he was sentenced to three consecutive terms of life imprisonment for each murder conviction and a consecutive term of 7.5 to 15 years’ imprisonment for the arson conviction.

A few months after the trial, the defendant filed post-sentence motions arguing that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing because the ATF agents had offered money to potential witnesses. The trial court denied this request. The defendant also filed various appeals with the Pennsylvania Superior Court. He was able to get one of his murder convictions vacated, but he was unsuccessful in obtaining relief for his other convictions. The defendant then filed a habeas petition claiming that the prosecution failed to disclose that it had paid witnesses to testify against him. At the hearing, the Commonwealth’s attorney said that he had reviewed ATF records and contacted the prosecutors and had not seen any record of witness payment. The habeas court denied the defendant’s petition and request for an evidentiary hearing.

Nearly a decade later, the defendant filed a petition in state court under the Post-Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) alleging that newly discovered evidence based on an expert opinion about the cause of the fire. Additionally, a non-profit organization filed a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request with the ATF seeking all recordings relating to the payment of reward money in the defendant’s case. The ATF provided two canceled checks showing that it had made payments of $5,000 and $10,000 relating to the fire. The non-profit then contacted one of the witnesses who said he had received $5,000 from an ATF agent after the defendant’s trial.

Armed with this information, the defendant filed a new PCRA petition alleging newly discovered facts in the form of a Brady violation. The PCRA court found that the defendant’s claim about the prosecution’s nondisclosure of the witnesses’ rewards satisfied the exceptions to the PCRA’s time-bar and granted the defendant a new trial. The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed this decision. Upon remand to the state trial court, the defendant moved to dismiss the charges on double-jeopardy grounds. While that motion was pending, a federal grand jury indicted the defendant, charging him with destruction of property by fire resulting in death. The Commonwealth then filed a motion to nolle pros the state charges. The state court granted the motion to dismiss the state charges.

The defendant then moved to dismiss the federal indictment on Double Jeopardy grounds. Specifically, the defendant argued that his state prosecution was “a tool of the federal authorities.” The Government argued that the dual-sovereignty principle applied. That rule allows the federal and state governments to charge a defendant for the same crime. After hearing arguments, the federal District Court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss, holding that the dual-sovereignty principle allowed the defendant’s case to go forward in federal court. The defendant then filed a timely appeal.

The Third Circuit’s Decision

The Third Circuit denied the defendant’s appeal. The Double Jeopardy Clause says that no personal shall “be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” However, the Double Jeopardy Clause’s prohibition against a second prosecution for the same offense is not absolute. There are exceptions to this rule. One, obviously, is the dual-sovereignty principle. Another exception is that a prosecutor can retry a defendant who succeeds in getting his first conviction set aside, through direct appeal or collateral attack. This is referred to as the “trial-error rule.” In the instant case, the Third Circuit said the dual-sovereignty principle was not applicable to the defendant’s case, but rather the trial-error rule.

The trial-error rule allows the prosecution to retry a defendant where the conviction is reversed due to trial error such as incorrect receipt or rejection of evidence or incorrect jury instructions. Paradoxically, the Third Circuit also categorizes prosecutorial misconduct as a “trial-error.” In other words, according to the Third Circuit, a prosecutor can commit some type of misconduct (i.e. withhold exculpatory evidence) and that will not necessarily bar them from retrying a defendant. However, there is an exception to this rule that if the prosecutor attempted to goad a defendant into asking for a mistrial because they feared an acquittal and the mistrial was granted, then Double Jeopardy could apply. According to the Third Circuit, “the Fifth Amendment does not permit such gamesmanship.”

The Third Circuit found that this exception did not apply in this case. Although the prosecution had failed to provide the defense with discovery, the prosecution had not done so with the intent to prove a mistrial. Therefore, the mistrial exception did not apply in this case. The government will therefore be able to try the defendant in federal court.