Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog

Zak Goldstein 4/12/23 Zak Goldstein 4/12/23

PA Superior Court: Trial Court May Grant New Trial in Criminal Case Sua Sponte

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Becher, recognizing that a trial court may grant a new trial to a defendant on its own even after a conviction. The Superior Court, however, reversed the grant of the new trial in this case because the error relied upon by the trial court in granting the new trial was not significant enough to justify such an extreme measure. This case is helpful for the defense in that it reaffirms the ability of the trial judge to grant a new trial when an egregious error has occurred, but it was not good for this defendant as this particular defendant had his grant of a new trial reversed.

The Facts of Commonwealth v. Becher

The defendant, three of his cousins, and a friend went to a strip club. There were members of a motorcycle club at the strip club who started an altercation with an intoxicated person and beat him up outside of the club. One of the defendant’s cousins taunted the club members for beating up an intoxicated person. The cousin and a club member started to fight but were quickly separated. Another cousin entered the club to grab the defendant. He was unaware of any altercations. At that time, the two remaining cousins reinitiated the fight. The defendant emerged from the club, observed the physical altercation, drew his gun, and struck one of the club members with it. The defendant then dropped the gun, and a melee ensued. During the struggle, the defendant was shot, recovered the gun himself, and shot two club members.

The Issue at Trial

At trial, three motorcycle club members testified that during the fight, the defendant’s cousin kept yelling that she was going to get her cousin and have him “smoke” them. After the Commonwealth had witnesses testify to this threat, the defendant's lawyer objected on hearsay grounds to the admission of the cousin’s threats. The trial court overruled the objection. The Commonwealth referred to the cousin's threats in closing arguments, and the trial court gave the jury a cautionary instruction. The trial court instructed the jury not to use the statements against the defendant as proof of his intent.

A jury found the defendant guilty of third-degree murder, finding he did not act in self-defense. The defendant’s lawyer filed a motion for a new trial alleging that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. At sentencing, the trial court ruled that it would grant the defendant a new trial for a different reason. The trial court found that a new trial was necessary in the interests of justice because the testimony of the cousin’s threats was blatant and inadmissible hearsay. The trial court determined that it should have precluded the threats. Alternatively, if the statements were not hearsay, they were still unfairly prejudicial and should not have been admitted. Therefore, the trial court granted the defendant a new trial sua sponte.

The Appeal

The Commonwealth filed an appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. On appeal, the Commonwealth argued that the trial court abused its discretion in sua sponte granting a new trial to the defendant because none of its reasons supported taking such an extreme measure.

The Superior Court agreed. The Court recognized that a trial court may grant a new trial sua sponte in the interests of justice. The ability to do so, however, is limited. Generally, a court may only do so when there has been some kind of egregious error in the proceedings. Additionally, the standard that must be met depends now whether a party to the proceedings has recognized and preserved the error. When a party recognizes an error but fails to preserve that error, there must be an exceedingly clear error of a constitutional or structural nature. The result must be a manifest injustice that amounts to severely depriving a party's liberty interest. Because the defendant’s attorney was aware of and objected to the threats at some point during the trial, the Superior Court reviewed the grant of a new trial under this higher standard. The lawyer had objected but not moved for a mistrial.

First, the Superior Court rejected the trial court’s conclusion that the threat was blatant, inadmissible hearsay. Instead, the threat had been admitted for a proper purpose. The threat was not used to prove the defendant’s state of mind but instead to tell the whole story of events. Further, a threat to do something is not necessarily a statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Instead, it is more of a present sense impression in that it is a statement about what someone intends to do. In this case, the witness intended to have the defendant commit the shooting.

The Superior Court also rejected the trial court’s conclusion that the statement was more prejudicial than probative. The Court found both that the statement was relevant, that it was not unfairly prejudicial, and that the trial court prevented any unfair prejudice by giving the jury a cautionary instruction that it should not hold the statement against the defendant. Therefore, the Court concluded that trial court erred in granting a new trial. The errors cited by the trial court were not actually errors, and even if they were, they were not big enough to justify a sua sponte grant of a new trial.

Therefore, the Superior Court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the defendant a new trial sua sponte. The Court reversed the trial court's order and remanded it to hear the motion for a new trial based on the weight of the evidence argument. The case obviously does not help this particular defendant, but it does reaffirm that where an error is egregious enough, a court retains the inherent authority to order a new trial in order to fix that error.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Attorneys

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 won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court. 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 4/4/23 Zak Goldstein 4/4/23

Third Circuit: Pennsylvania State Court Rules on Use of Co-Defendant's Confession Against Defendant Violate Confrontation Clause

Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire - Criminal Defense Lawyer

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has decided the case of Freeman v. Fayette, holding once again that Pennsylvania’s rules regarding the use of redacted statements by co-defendants against the defendant in a criminal case are unconstitutional. The Third Circuit’s decision is not technically binding on the state courts because the Third Circuit only addresses federal appeals. But because the Third Circuit eventually reviews many serious state decisions during federal habeas litigation, particularly in murder cases, the Third Circuit’s ruling could have a dramatic impact on Pennsylvania criminal procedure. In this case, the Third Circuit held once again that where a co-defendant gives a statement which implicates both the defendant and the co-defendant in the crime, redacting the co-defendant’s statement to remove the defendant’s name and replace it with “the other guy” or something similar doe snot adequately protect the defendant’s confrontation clause rights. In this case, the Court retired this point, but it did find that although the defendant’s rights had been violated, the violation amounted to harmless error because the evidence against the defendant was so strong.

The Facts of Freeman v. Fayette

The Commonwealth charged four men with robbery, kidnapping, and murder. One pleaded guilty before trial and agreed to testify against his co-conspirators. Three of the four co-defendants proceeded to trial. During the trial, the court heard testimony from various witnesses placing the four men together around the time of the crime. Finally, the Commonwealth used a statement by one of the remaining three co-defendants implicating the others. That defendant did not testify, and the statement was redacted but still referred to the other co-defendants as “the first guy" and "the second guy." The Commonwealth read the statement to the jury over the objections of the defense attorneys for those defendants. The judge instructed the jury that the statement was to be used only as evidence against the defendant who made the statement, not the co-defendants. The court also repeated this cautionary instruction at the end of the trial. A jury found all three men guilty of second-degree murder. The trial court sentenced them to the mandatory sentence of life without parole.

The Criminal Appeal

On appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the defendant’s conviction, concluding that there was no Confrontation Clause or Bruton violation. After exhausting his appeals and post-conviction relief at the state level, the defendant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the federal district court. The district court concluded that the admission of the co-defendant's statement violated the defendant’s confrontation clause rights. The court also concluded that its admission was not harmless error, so the court granted the defendant’s writ of habeas corpus. The Commonwealth then appealed the decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

What is the Confrontation Clause, and what is a Bruton issue?

The Confrontation Clause, which is part of the Sixth Amendment, provides criminal defendants with the right to confront the witnesses against them. This means they have the right to cross-examine witnesses under oath at trial. In Bruton v. United States, prosecutors tried two defendants together for armed robbery. At trial, prosecutors used one of the defendant’s confessions against him, and the statement also implicated the co-defendant. The judge instructed the jury only to use the statement against the defendant, not the co-defendant. A jury convicted both men for the crimes charged. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court violated the co-defendant’s right to confront and cross-examine despite the jury instruction because the trial court’s ruling essentially allowed the person who confessed to implicate the defendant without that person’s statement being subject to cross-examination.. Subsequent United States Supreme Court decisions have also held that redactions may not be sufficient unless they eliminate both the defendant's name and any reference to their existence. The state courts, however, have often allowed the Commonwealth to simply replace the defendant’s name with something generic like “the other guy.”

The Third Circuit’s Decision

Because the Commonwealth’s appeal challenged the district court’s ruling in habeas litigation, the Third Circuit was required to use a very deferential standard of review. Under the AEDPA, the mere fact that the state court was wrong is not enough to obtain relief. Instead, a court must first 1) determine whether there has been an error (in this case a Bruton violation), and then 2) determine whether the state court made a determination that was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. A defendant must then also show prejudice. It is enough to show the trial judge was wrong; instead, the defendant must show that the trial judge was very, very wrong and that it likely affected the outcome of the proceedings.

Here, the Commonwealth argued that using "the first guy" and "the second guy" did not facially incriminate the defendant because these substitutes did not refer to him by name. The Commonwealth therefore argued that the statement did not facially incriminate the defendant and that any incrimination effect could come only inferentially. The Superior Court, however, has held that Bruton violates generally do not occur when a statement has been redacted and any incriminating effect arises inferentially.

The defendant argued that the redactions left it so obvious who the co-defendant was talking about that they offered insufficient protection, essentially making the statement directly accusatory. It named two perpetrators and left the two perpetrators unnamed, referring to them as "the first guy" and "the second guy." This made it so that the jury only needed to look up at the defense table and see the two co-defendants to identify who the statement implicated. Accordingly, the Third Circuit rejected the conclusions of the state courts that the statement did not violate Bruton. The Court had made similar rulings on numerous occasions, to the Court also found that the state courts clearly failed to apply federal law. Unfortunately, the Court also found that the evidence against the defendant was overwhelming and that he would have been convicted even without the statement, so the Court reversed the district court’s order granting the writ of habeas corpus. The defendant will therefore not receive a new trial despite the obvious violation.

Given the Third Circuit’s ruling, the case is not helpful for the individual defendant in this case. It is, however, very helpful for criminal defendants going forward as it once again sends a message to the state courts and Commonwealth that inadequate redactions do not render a co-defendant’s statement admissible against the defendant unless the defendant has a chance to cross-examine the co-defendant.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Zak Goldstein 2/14/23 Zak Goldstein 2/14/23

Not Guilty: Full Acquittal for Man Accused of Threatening Off Duty Police Officer

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire, recently obtained a full acquittal on charges of terroristic threats and harassment for a client who had been charged with threatening an off-duty police officer. In the case of Commonwealth v. KO, the officer claimed that he was walking his dog in a park in Northeast Philadelphia when KO’s dog ran up to the officer’s dog while not on a leash. KO came over to get his dog, and the officer told him to put the dog on a leash. KO did so, but the officer claimed that KO said he would shoot the officer and his dog because the officer suggested that he might let his dog off the leash to bite KO’s dog.

The officer testified that not only did KO threaten to shoot him and his dog once, but he actually made the comment multiple times and put his hand in his jacket as if he had a gun before putting the dog on a leash and walking off. The officer got KO’s license plate number when KO left the park, and he later reported the incident to a detective. The detectives filed charges of terroristic threats and harassment against KO.

KO retained Attorney Goldstein, and Attorney Goldstein obtained a full acquittal at the subsequent Philadelphia Municipal Court trial. At trial, Attorney Goldstein cross-examined the officer on the fact that he never actually saw a gun and that both men were just yelling at each other during the stressful situation of getting the dog back on the leash. Attorney Goldstein then called character witnesses as well as KO to testify that KO had only said something to the officer because the officer had threatened him first and in fact had a gun, whereas KO did not.

The Municipal Court Judge promptly found KO not guilty of all charges, and the charges can now be expunged. As KO holds a professional license and a job that requires a background check, the ability to obtain a full acquittal and an expungement was critical for him. He was able to do both.

Ultimately, the terroristic threats statute appears to be very broad on its face. It covers far more than terrorism and applies to anything that appears to be a threat. The statute provides:

(a) Offense defined.--A person commits the crime of terroristic threats if the person communicates, either directly or indirectly, a threat to:
(1) commit any crime of violence with intent to terrorize another;
(2) cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly or facility of public transportation; or
(3) otherwise cause serious public inconvenience, or cause terror or serious public inconvenience with reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience.

Terroristic threats is a misdemeanor of the first degree which carries up to five years in prison and can result in a permanent disability from possessing a firearm under federal law. At the same time, the statute requires not just a threat but the actual intent to terrorize. In numerous cases, the appellate courts in Pennsylvania have held that threatening words said during a transitory moment of anger as part of an argument do not qualify as a terroristic threat under the law. Accordingly, even if KO had said what the officer alleged, the judge properly applied the law in acquitting KO.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. Our experienced and understanding Philadelphia criminal defense attorneys have successfully defended clients and obtained new trials after conviction in cases involving charges as serious as Aggravated Assault, Rape, Murder, and Fraud. We have also won criminal appeals and post-conviction relief in state and federal court. At the same time, our extensive experience in the Philadelphia criminal justice system and skills in the courtroom often allow us to obtain outcomes like this one even in relatively less serious cases in the Philadelphia Municipal Court. We offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with a defense attorney today.

Zak Goldstein 1/9/23 Zak Goldstein 1/9/23

PA Supreme Court: Multiple Third-Degree Murder Convictions at the Same Time Require Life Without Parole

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Coleman, holding that a criminal defendant who kills three people during the same incident and is then convicted of third degree murder for each killing is subject to the mandatory life without parole sentencing enhancement that applies for multiple convictions for third degree murder. Many statutes that impose enhanced sentences for subsequent offenses require that the offenses take place at different times, but the Supreme Court has held that killing more than one person and then getting convicted of life without parole requires a mandatory life sentence pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. § 9715(a).

The facts of Commonwealth v. Coleman

Police observed the defendant make an illegal left turn in a white Hyundai. They approached the vehicle when it stopped at a gas station. The defendant did not have a driver’s license, and when additional officers arrived as backup, the defendant fled in the vehicle. This led to a high-speed chase. The defendant eventually crashed the Hyundai into two vehicles at an intersection. The force of the impact caused the vehicle to explode into flames, killing all three occupants of one of the vehicles instantly. Prosecutors charged the defendant with three counts of murder.

At trial, the defendant was convicted of three counts murder in the third degree, amongst other charges. Before sentencing the Commonwealth filed a notice of intent to proceed under Section 9715(a) of the Sentencing Code. The trial court declined to apply the sentencing enhancement and instead imposed consecutive terms of 20 to 40 years of incarceration for each of the defendant’s third-degree murder convictions. The defendant was ultimately sentenced to an aggregate term of 70 to 140 years of incarceration.

The Appeal

The Commonwealth appealed, arguing that the statute requires life imprisonment even where a defendant commits multiple counts of third degree murder at the same time but did not have any prior convictions for murder.

Section 9715 of the Sentencing Code, entitled “Life imprisonment for homicide,” provides:

(a) Mandatory life imprisonment.--Notwithstanding the provisions of section 9712 (relating to sentences for offenses committed with firearms), 9713 (relating to sentences for offenses committed on public transportation) or 9714 (relating to sentences for second and subsequent offenses), any person convicted of murder of the third degree in this Commonwealth who has previously been convicted at any time of murder or voluntary manslaughter in this Commonwealth or of the same or substantially equivalent crime in any other jurisdiction shall be sentenced to life imprisonment, notwithstanding any other provision of this title or other statute to the contrary.

The trial court wrote an opinion in which it argued thatSection 9715(a) was a recidivist sentencing statute and that the defendant was not a recidivist because, while he had been convicted of three counts of criminal homicide, he had never “previously” committed criminal homicide.

Both parties appealed to the Superior Court. The Superior Court ruled in favor of the Commonwealth. The Court found that the defendant should have been sentenced to life without parole. The Superior Court concluded that the defendant’s third-degree murder conviction at Count 1 of the Criminal Information constituted a prior conviction for purposes of applying Section 9715(a) when sentencing him for his convictions of third-degree murder at Counts 2 and 3 of the Criminal Information. The Superior Court therefore remanded the case for the trial court to sentence the defendant to life without parole.

The defendant filed a petition for allowance of appeal to the Supreme Court, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed to review the case. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted discretionary review to resolve the following issue:

Should the mandatory sentencing provision of 9715(a) apply to a case where the offenses and the deaths were simultaneous?

The Defendant argued that Section 9715 of the Sentencing Code should not be construed to apply to a case such as this one, where a single course of conduct caused multiple, instantaneous, simultaneous deaths and the convictions at issue were, at most, minutes apart. The term “previous” in the code is meant to refer to a prior conviction outside the current matter. The Commonwealth focused on principles of statutory construction and Section 9715(a)’s use of the phrase “previously been convicted at any time.” They further argued that the phrase should be interpreted literally, meaning that there is no previous conviction too remote, nor too recent, to be exempt from the rule.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court decided with the Commonwealth. The Court ruled that § 9715 of the applies under these circumstances. § 9715(a) provides that any person convicted of third-degree murder in this Commonwealth who has previously been convicted at any time of murder must receive an enhanced sentence. The statute does not define any of the terms in this operative phrase. Giving the most pertinent terms their plain and ordinary meaning, the term “at any time,” the General Assembly made clear that there is no limitation relative to a person’s previous conviction that would preclude application of the sentencing enhancement insofar as it concerns § 9715(a). Thus, § to Section 9715(a), so long as a person convicted of third-degree murder has previously been convicted of murder at any point in time, the sentencing enhancement applies to that person.

The Supreme Court, therefore, affirmed the Superior Court’s ruling to vacate defendant’s judgment of sentence and remand for resentencing in accordance with § 9715.