Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog

Zak Goldstein 1/6/22 Zak Goldstein 1/6/22

PA Supreme Court: Prosecutors Must Introduce Real Evidence of Dangerousness to Revoke Bail

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Talley, holding that prosecutors must introduce real evidence that a defendant is a danger to the community and no conditions of release can prevent that danger in order to revoke bail. This situation frequently comes up where a defendant has been held in custody on cash bail for 180 days. Once that happens, the defense may file a motion for nominal bail pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 600(B). Pursuant to 600(B), a defendant may not be held in custody for more than 180 days (with exceptions for periods of time where the defense caused the continuance) without a trial. If 180 days pass from the date of arrest, then the defendant should be released on nominal bail. In response, prosecutors frequently move to revoke bail, arguing either that the defendant is too big of a flight risk to release or that the defendant is so dangerous that he or she should not be released. Courts often grant these motions based solely on the prosecutor’s hearsay representations regarding the strength of their case and a defendant’s criminal history, and the Supreme Court has now ruled that such a procedure is not constitutional.

The Facts of Talley

The defendant was arrested and charged with aggravated assault, stalking, harassment, and related charges. Police alleged that he had sent threatening messages to his ex-girlfriend via social media and also shot a bullet into the wall of her house. This behavior went on for a while, and police eventually arrested Talley for these charges. The specifics of the charges are not particularly relevant to the issue in the appeal other than the fact that the charges involved violent crimes.

The defendant was initially released on bail. While he was in custody, the threatening messages had stopped. Once he was released, the complainant began to receive them again. The police arrested the defendant again, and his bail was increased. He was not able to afford the new bail, and he was held in custody.

After the Commonwealth held the defendant in custody for more than 180 days, he filed a motion for release on nominal bail pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 600(B). 600(B) permits a defendant to petition for nominal bail after they have been held for more than 180 days through no fault of their own. The individual should generally be released at that point, often on house arrest. In response, however, the Commonwealth usually files to revoke the defendant’s bail, arguing that “no condition or combination of conditions other than imprisonment will reasonably assure the safety of any person and the community when the proof is evident or presumption great.”

The trial court waited four months to hear the motion but eventually held a hearing on it. At the hearing, the Commonwealth simply argued that based on the facts of the case as described in the affidavit of probable cause, the defendant was a risk to the complainant and the community and that he should be held in custody. The Commonwealth also insisted that the defendant could not be released on house arrest without explaining any particular justification for that assertion. The court then denied the defendant’s motion.

The Supreme Court Appeal

The Supreme Court ultimately accepted the defendant’s appeal in order to clarify what type of evidence and how much evidence the Commonwealth must present at a hearing on a motion to revoke a defendant’s bail completely. While hearsay is generally allowed at bail hearings, the motion to revoke bail is different because all defendant’s other than those facing a life sentence for a first degree murder charge are entitled to bail. Therefore, the Commonwealth has to prove that the defendant is actually a risk to the community.

In the past, most judges have allowed the Commonwealth to simply make argument. In other words, the prosecutor will generally describe the allegations, claim that the evidence is very strong, and tell the court about any prior convictions that the defendant has. If the defendant has no record, most judges will grant the motion for nominal bail and release a defendant on house arrest. But where a defendant has a criminal record, many judges will revoke bail at the Commonwealth’s request without conducting any significant review of either the evidence of dangerousness or the strength of the evidence in the case.

The Supreme Court clearly rejected this procedure and held that the Commonwealth must show more than a mere prima facie showing that the defendant has committed the crimes charged. Thus, the fact that the defendant has been held for court following a preliminary hearing or that an arrest warrant was issued is not enough. At the same time, the Pennsylvania Constitution does not require the Commonwealth to introduce proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, the Commonwealth must present a substantial quality of legally competent evidence, meaning evidence that is admissible under the Rules of Evidence, to show the trial court that the defendant should not be released. The Commonwealth may not simply describe the evidence, provide the trial court with hearsay, or rely upon a cold record or untested assertions alone. The Commonwealth must call actual witnesses and present real evidence to show that it is substantially more likely than not that the accused should not be released because the accused is too dangerous to be released.

The Court emphasized that this is a high evidentiary standard that applies only to a motion to revoke bail. It does not apply to a general motion to raise bail. Further, the Court should strongly consider release conditions that can ensure the safety of the community such as regular check ins with pre-trial services, house arrest, electronic monitoring, and things of that nature. The practice of simply asserting that the defendant committed a serious crime and so should be held without bail is no longer acceptable.

Ultimately, this opinion should result in far fewer defendants being held without bail simply because they asserted their speedy trial rights under Rule 600(B). The Court has added some real teeth to the rule by significantly increasing the burden that the Commonwealth must meet in order to hold someone without bail when they are not charged with murder. Most defendants should now not be held without bail even where they are charged with serious crimes if they do not have a history of committing crimes while released on bail or have never been placed on house arrest before. Thus, courts throughout the Commonwealth will now be required to mores strictly enforce the speedy trial guarantee of Rule 600(B). This is a great decision as many defendants are held without bail for years while awaiting trial while ostensibly presumed innocent. Now the presumption of innocence should have more meaning in Pennsylvania.

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 11/11/21 Zak Goldstein 11/11/21

Attorney Goldstein Obtains New Sentencing in Federal Court for Murder Defendant Sentenced to Illegal 40-Year Sentence

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorney Zak Goldstein recently obtained a new sentencing hearing for a client who had been sentenced to an illegal 40-year sentence for third degree murder. In S.C. v. Krasner, et al., the defendant had been found guilty of third degree murder by the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. At the time that the murder was committed, the statute in effect for third-degree murder authorized a maximum sentence of 20 years’ incarceration. While the case was pending, however, the Pennsylvania Legislature amended the statute to increase the maximum to 40 years’ incarceration. Following his conviction, the Court of Common Pleas improperly sentenced S.C. to 40 years’ incarceration despite the fact that ex post facto rules prohibit the government from retroactively applying laws which make penalties worse where those laws were not in effect at the time that the crime was committed. S.C.’s attorneys did not appeal on this issue at the time.

S.C. had a number of legal issues and was serving sentences in multiple jurisdictions at the same time. Over the years, he wrote to his original attorneys asking that they appeal the 20-40 year sentence because the sentence violated his rights in that he received a worse punishment than he could have received at the time of the offense. The attorneys wrote back and erroneously advised him that there was no rush to file an appeal or PCRA petition because the illegal sentence could be corrected at any time. Ultimately, S.C. made parole, but because of the illegal sentence, he would have remained on parole for twenty years. S.C. therefore filed a PCRA petition with prior counsel asking that the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia correct the illegal sentence and re-sentence him to 10-20 years’ incarceration. The trial court denied that petition, finding that it was untimely filed and that S.C. should have appealed at the time of his original sentencing. The Superior Court affirmed.

S.C. then retained Attorney Goldstein to file a petition in federal court. In general, once state court appeals and PCRA petitions have been denied, it is sometimes possible to challenge the rulings of the state courts in federal courts by filing a federal habeas petition pursuant to 28 US Code § 2254. Attorney Goldstein therefore filed a petition asking the federal court to find that the illegal sentence should be vacated because S.C. could not have properly received a 40 year sentence at the time of his original sentencing.

Attorney Goldstein also argued that the doctrine of equitable tolling should apply. In most cases, a federal habeas petition is subject to a one year statute of limitations which begins to run form when the defendant’s sentence becomes final. This typically means that the petition must be filed within about a year of the conclusion of any appeals, although a defendant may have an additional thirty or ninety days if the defendant appealed to the Superior Court or Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Equitable tolling is a doctrine which allows a federal court to consider a claim even when the statute of limitations has expired.

In order to receive equitable tolling, a petitioner must establish two elements: (1) that he or she has been pursuing his or her rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way. Some federal courts have applied equitable tolling where it is clear that the petitioner was abandoned by counsel or received incredibly incorrect legal advice.

In this case, Attorney Goldstein filed the habeas petition, and the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office then actually agreed to the relief sought. The Commonwealth, through its Conviction Integrity Unit, conceded that S.C. should not have received a sentence of more than 20 years under the third-degree murder statute which was in effect at the time of the crime. Given the Commonwealth’s agreement, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania promptly granted the habeas petition and ordered that the state court re-sentence S.C. S.C. then received a 10-20 year sentence, which he had already served, at the re-sentencing. Accordingly, he will not have to spend 20 years subject to the restrictions and whims of state parole.

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. We have also obtained new trials and sentencing hearings for clients on appeal and in post-conviction litigation. 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 10/15/21 Zak Goldstein 10/15/21

PA Superior Court Reins in Prior Bad Acts Evidence in Homicide Case

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Green, holding that the trial court improperly granted the Commonwealth’s Prior Bad Acts Motion in a homicide trial. The Superior Court found that the facts of the two cases were not sufficiently similar to justify introducing evidence that the defendant had previously committed another crime and therefore the defendant was unfairly prejudiced at trial. This case is very significant because prosecutors frequently attempt to introduce evidence of prior misconduct by the defendant in serious cases and courts routinely grant these motions. Once a jury learns that the defendant already has a criminal record, it becomes extremely difficult to obtain a fair trial. Therefore, it is very important the Superior Court has found a limit to what type of prior bad acts evidence prosecutors may introduce at trial.

Commonwealth v. Green

A woman was shot and killed in her convenience store in South Philadelphia. A man entered the decedent’s store, aimed a firearm at her, and shot her ten times. The man then fled the store. A short time later, the gunman, later identified as the defendant, was seen on video surveillance entering a black Chevrolet Impala located nearby.

A Philadelphia Police detective spoke to the defendant’s girlfriend. The girlfriend told the police about a night that happened six months prior to the murder. According to the girlfriend, the defendant left her alone in his house and after he left, the girlfriend spoke with the decedent’s grandson and they decided to steal the defendant’s favorite necklace. The girlfriend stole the defendant’s necklace and then gave it to the grandson to pawn. They then split the money and used it to buy drugs.

Four days after the shooting, the defendant was arrested and was charged with first-degree murder, carrying a firearm without a license, carrying a firearm on a public street in Philadelphia, possession of an instrument of crime, and recklessly endangering another person. The Commonwealth filed a motion to introduce prior bad acts. Specifically, the Commonwealth sought to present evidence regarding an incident that took place 14 months prior to the murder. During this incident, the defendant allegedly had a physical altercation over a drug dispute with an individual named “Jay” and in retaliation, shot at “Jay’s” grandmother’s house. However, the defendant was not arrested regarding this incident. According to the Commonwealth, this showed that the defendant had a common scheme or plan of committing retribution against the grandmothers of those with whom he had drug disputes. The trial court granted the Commonwealth’s motion to admit the evidence of the prior shooting.

The defendant elected to proceed by jury trial and represented himself. During his first trial, the trial court declared a mistrial because the jury was unable to return a unanimous verdict. During the defendant’s second trial, he was found guilty of all charges. On the same day, the trial court sentenced the defendant to life in prison. The defendant filed a post-sentence motion which was denied. The defendant filed a timely appeal. On appeal, the defendant raised several issues, but for purposes of this blog, only the issue of whether the trial court improperly granted the Commonwealth’s prior bad acts motion will be addressed.

What is a Prior Bad Acts Motion?

Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 404(b) is the relevant rule that governs prior bad acts motions. Rule 404(b) states:

1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a crime, wrong, other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.
2) Permitted Uses. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident. In a criminal case this evidence is admissible only if the probative value of the evidence outweighs its potential for unfair prejudice.

Evidence of prior crimes is not admissible for the sole purpose of demonstrating a criminal defendant’s propensity to commit crimes. However, this type of evidence may be admissible in certain circumstances where it is relevant for some other legitimate purpose and not utilized solely to blacken a defendant’s character. Specifically, other crimes evidence is admissible if offered for a non-propensity purpose, such as proof of an actor’s knowledge, plan, motive, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. As such, when this evidence is offered for a legitimate purpose, evidence of prior crimes will be admissible if its probative value outweighs its potential for unfair prejudice.

When ruling upon the admissibility of evidence under the common plan exception, the trial court must examine the details and surrounding circumstances of each criminal incident to assure that the evidence reveals criminal conduct which is distinctive. In making its decision, trial courts are supposed to consider the habits or patterns of actions undertaken by the defendant. Additionally, trial courts must also consider the time, place, and types of victims. Further, the common plan evidence must not be too remote in time to be probative to the instant matter.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court’s Decision

The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the trial court and granted the defendant a new trial. The Superior Court found that the two incidents were just too different, and therefore the trial court committed reversible error by granting the Commonwealth’s motion. Specifically, the Superior Court found that two different guns were used in the shootings; the defendant was not arrested in the prior bad acts motion shooting; the two shootings were 14 months apart; and in the prior bad acts shooting, only the door was shot. Because these two shootings were too distinctive from one another, the evidence of the prior shooting should not have been admitted at the trial. Therefore, the Court vacated the defendant’s judgment of sentence, and the defendant will receive a new trial.

Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help.

Criminal Defense Lawyers Zak Goldstein and Demetra Mehta

Zak Goldstein 6/30/21 Zak Goldstein 6/30/21

PA Superior Court: Threatening and Later Hitting Someone Sufficient Evidence for Terroristic Threats Conviction

The Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Campbell, affirming the defendant’s conviction for terroristic threats. The Superior Court’s decision in this case is not surprising given that the defendant threatened the complainant and then proceeded to physically attack him. However, other terroristic threats cases are not always this obvious. Further, the Commonwealth will frequently charge terroristic threats in addition to other crimes of violence. As such, if you are charged with terroristic threats, it is imperative that you have a skilled attorney representing you because it requires a very specific attention to details in orderly to properly defend against this charge.

Commonwealth v. Campbell

The defendant was painting the floor of the complainant’s house in South Philadelphia. The defendant asked the complainant to give him $500 for more materials to which the complainant responded that he would only give the defendant $300. As a result of this, the defendant became angry and started yelling and cursing at the complainant. The complainant would later testify that he became scared because of the defendant’s yelling. The complainant then tried to call the police, but the defendant slapped the phone out of his hand before he could do so.

After he slapped the phone out of the complainant’s hand, the defendant then went to his van. While he was out there, the complainant was able to call the police. The defendant then returned to the complainant’s house and confronted the complainant on his front porch. The two men got into a physical confrontation which resulted in the defendant punching the complainant in the mouth, knocking the complainant’s two front teeth out. The defendant said to the complainant “if you don’t give me money, I’m going to finish you.” After this exchange, the defendant left the complainant’s residence.

After the defendant left, the complainant retreated to his van to wait for the police. Before the police arrived, the defendant came back to the complainant’s house, this time with his four children. The defendant walked up to the complainant’s car and struck him with a tire iron. A short time later, the police arrived. The complainant initially refused medical treatment because he was waiting for a locksmith to come to change his locks because the defendant had a key to his home. After the locksmith changed the locks, the complainant did go to the hospital for treatment. The record is unclear as to what other injuries the complainant sustained.

The defendant was subsequently arrested and charged with aggravated assault and terroristic events. The defendant elected to proceed by a bench trial. At trial, the complainant testified to the aforementioned facts. The defendant also testified. He admitted to getting into a physical altercation with the complainant over money and punching him in the mouth. He also admitted to hitting the complainant with a weapon, but he said that he hit him with nunchucks and that this was done in self-defense. Finally, and most relevant for this blog, he admitted telling the complainant that if he did not give him his money, he would finish him.

At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court found the defendant guilty of simple assault, possessing an instrument of crime, and terroristic threats. He was sentenced to two years’ probation. The defendant filed a timely appeal. On appeal, the defendant only challenged his conviction for terroristic threats. As stated above, he admits that he made the above statement to the complainant. However, he argued that this was not sufficient to convict him of the charge of terroristic threats because the threat amounted only to a “spur-of-the moment threat made as a product of transitory anger.”

The Pennsylvania Superior Court’s Decision

The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the defendant’s conviction for terroristic threats and found that his claim was “meritless.” In order to sustain a conviction for terroristic threats, the Commonwealth must prove that the defendant 1) made a threat to commit a crime of violence and 2) the threat was communicated with the intent to terrorize another. The Superior Court found that the purpose of the terroristic threats statute was to impose criminal liability on individuals who make threats which “seriously impair personal security.”

In reviewing the record, the Superior Court found that there was more than sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of terroristic threats. The fact that the defendant actually hit the complainant after making said threat showed that the defendant did not merely make said threat during a period of transitory anger. What was most damning for the defendant, was that he made the threat to the complainant, left the scene, and then returned again to attack the complainant. To the Superior Court, this showed that the defendant had intended to terrorize the complainant when he made said threat. As such, the defendant will not get relief and his conviction will stand.

Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help.

Criminal Defense Lawyers in Philadelphia