Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog

Zak Goldstein 10/8/24 Zak Goldstein 10/8/24

Attorney Goldstein Wins New Trial For Client Who Served 18 Years for Wrongful Attempted Murder Conviction

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein — Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

Philadelphia criminal defense lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire, recently won a new trial for a client who served 18 years for a wrongful conviction for attempted murder. In 2006, the client, R.C., was arrested and charged along with three others for participating in shooting at an alleged rival from the neighborhood. The shots missed and struck a young child, seriously injuring him. R.C. and his co-defendants were charged with various counts of attempted murder and firearms offenses. The entire case depended on the testimony of one eyewitness who repeatedly told significantly different versions of the events. All four defendants proceeded by way of jury trial, and the jury convicted three of them. One of the four was acquitted by the Philadelphia jury.

About eight years later, one of the co-defendants filed and litigated a successful Post-Conviction Relief Act Petition alleging that his trial lawyer provided the ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to adequately prove that he could not have done the shooting because he was on video at the Gallery at the time of the shooting. The trial lawyer had introduced some of the video evidence at trial, but the trial lawyer had not obtained phone location data and receipts which further corroborated that that co-defendant could not have been there because he was in fact shopping miles away during the incident. The trial judge was eventually required by the Superior Court to grant that defendant a new trial, and the Commonwealth elected not to proceed with re-trying him.

Unfortunately, the co-defendant’s successful alibi exoneration did not result in any relief for R.C. or the other co-defendant who remains in custody. Fortunately, re-investigation of the case led to two leads in R.C.’s attempt to obtain justice. First, a review of the police file revealed the existence of a handwritten note which showed that police had five suspects from the beginning rather than the four that the sole eyewitness testified to. Further, the handwritten note actually had writing on it which suggested that R.C. never even fired a gun. This note was never provided to the defense. Second, the main eyewitness agreed to speak with an investigator, and she recanted her testimony. She ultimately said that she suspected R.C. may have been out there and part of the shooting because the fourth shooter wore all black, which R.C. was known to do, and had a similar build, but she was not sure that she had actually seen his face. Instead, she asserted that her husband had convinced her to say that it was R.C. who did the shooting even though she was not 100% sure that he was involved.

Armed with this new evidence, Attorney Goldstein filed a Post-Conviction Relief Act Petition alleging that the Commonwealth committed a Brady violation by failing to disclose the note to the defense and that the recantation qualified as after discovered evidence which required a new trial. The PCRA court conducted a full day evidentiary hearing to hear from various witnesses from the defense and the Commonwealth. The judge found the recanting witness credible and after 18 years, finally granted R.C. a new trial.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals and dismissals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, Violations of the Uniform Firearms Act, and First-Degree Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court, including the successful direct appeal of a first-degree murder conviction and the exoneration of a client who spent 33 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.

Zak Goldstein 9/28/24 Zak Goldstein 9/28/24

PA Supreme Court Finds No Right to Bail in First Degree Murder Cases

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Yard, finding that a defendant does not have the right to bail in a first-degree murder case no matter how weak the case.

The Facts of Yard

In Yard, the defendant was charged with first-degree murder after the August 2021 death of his infant son. The child suffered fatal blunt-force trauma while under the defendant’s care. Adding to the suspicion, the child also had broken ribs from weeks prior to his death. In April 2022, Yard was formally charged with multiple offenses, including first-degree murder, aggravated assault, and endangering the welfare of children. A Magisterial District Judge conducted a preliminary arraignment and held Yard in jail without bail pending trial.

Yard filed a motion for bail to be set. He argued that under the Supreme Court’s prior case of Commonwealth v. Talley, he was entitled to bail even though he was charged with first-degree murder. In Talley, the Supreme Court held that for bail to be denied based on dangerousness, the Commonwealth must essentially prove that it has a strong case. Yard argued that the Commonwealth’s case was not strong. He conceded that there was enough evidence for a lesser charge, such as involuntary manslaughter, but argued that the evidence did not support the specific intent necessary for a first-degree murder charge, which carries a potential life sentence.

During a bail hearing in May 2022, the Commonwealth presented evidence, including an autopsy report and the testimony of two forensic pathologists, supporting their case against Yard. The trial court agreed with Yard and set bail at $200,000 with non-monetary conditions. The Commonwealth moved for a stay and appealed. The Superior Court granted the stay and asked the trial court to explain why it granted bail.

In response, the trial court admitted that its decision relied on stipulated facts and not live testimony. Talley generally requires the Commonwealth to present some real evidence at the bail hearing in order to have a defendant held without bail, so the trial court held a new bail hearing. Yard also moved for nominal bail because he had been held for six months prior to trial in violation of Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(b). The trial court granted his motion and set bail at $1.

The Impact of Talley

In Commonwealth v. Talley, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court emphasized that defendants generally should not be held without bail based on potential dangerousness without real evidence. The Court recognized three specific exceptions to the right to bail:

Capital Offenses - When the accused is charged with an offense for which the death penalty is a potential sentence, the accused is not entitled to bail.
Life Imprisonment Offenses - When the accused is charged with an offense punishable by life imprisonment, the accused is not entitled to bail.
Dangerousness Exception - When no condition or combination of conditions other than imprisonment will reasonably assure the safety of any person or the community, the defendant is not entitled ot bail.

The crux of Talley was the interpretation of the "proof is evident or presumption great" standard, which required an evidentiary threshold somewhere between probable cause and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court concluded that this standard applied specifically to the dangerousness exception, placing a significant burden on the Commonwealth to justify bail denial by showing that it was substantially more likely than not that the accused posed an imminent threat and that no conditions of release could mitigate that threat.

The Talley decision emphasized that bail courts must engage in both a qualitative and quantitative assessment of the evidence to evaluate whether an individual’s release would endanger public safety. Importantly, the Court highlighted that the burden of both production and persuasion fall on the Commonwealth and that the Commonwealth may not simply rely on hearsay and assert that the case is serious and the defendant is dangerous. Instead, before holding someone without bail, a trial court must hold a real hearing and receive actual evidence of dangerousness and on how strong the Commonwealth’s case is.

The Issue in Yard

In Yard, the issue was whether Talley’s requirement that the Commonwealth prove dangerousness and introduce real evidence at a bail hearing also applies in a first-degree murder case given that a conviction for first-degree murder requires at least a sentence of life without parole. Yard argued that Talley applied, while the Commonwealth argued that it did not.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected the argument. It found that the "proof is evident or presumption great" standard only applies to the dangerousness exception and not to cases involving capital offenses or offenses carrying a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. This means that for offenses like first-degree murder, which are punishable by life imprisonment, bail can be categorically denied without the need for the extensive evidentiary showing that would be required when the Commonwealth argues for the dangerousness exception. Accordingly, although Talley seemed to suggest that bail may be available even in first-degree murder cases, the state Supreme Court has now held that defendants charged with first-degree murder may not be released on bail.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?

Criminal Defense Attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

Zak Goldstein 8/12/24 Zak Goldstein 8/12/24

PA Superior Court: Causing Fatal Accident While Drunk Driving May Be Third Degree Murder

Commonwealth v. Peters

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Kevin Peters, holding that the trial court properly convicted the defendant of third degree murder for killing two people while driving drunk. The holding in this case conflicts with numerous cases of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in which the Court has held that drunk driving normally does not show the malice necessary to sustain a third degree murder conviction. Nonetheless, an en banc panel of the Superior Court affirmed the defendant’s conviction in this case.

The Facts of Peters

The evidence at trial showed that on December 6, 2019, after an evening of heavy drinking, the defendant decided to drive home from Philadelphia, despite being significantly impaired. He had attended an open-bar event at Ruth’s Chris Steak House, followed by visits to two other bars, where he continued to consume alcohol. The defendant rejected offers for alternative transportation from co-workers and chose to drive, even though he was visibly intoxicated.

The Commonwealth’s evidence suggested that the defendant was very drunk. He appears to have exhibited highly dangerous driving behavior, including speeding, swerving, and making abrupt lane changes without signaling on Interstate 95. He even had trouble paying to exit the parking garage and instead pushed the gate up himself, damaging it. Multiple drivers reported his erratic driving to 911. At approximately 1:00 AM, while traveling at a speed of 115 miles per hour, Peters rear-ended a van on I-95, causing it to catch fire. Two passengers in the van were killed. Two other occupants of the van survived but suffered serious injuries.

The Trial

The defendant was arrested and charged with murder, homicide by DUI, and related charges. The jury convicted him of third-degree murder, aggravated assault, and other charges. His defense had focused primarily on the idea that he should not be convicted of murder because ordinary drunk driving, without more, even when it results in a fatal accident, does not show the mens rea of malice necessary for a third degree murder conviction. Myriad other serious charges would apply, but murder arguably would not. The jury rejected that defense and convicted him, and he received a lengthy state sentence. He appealed.

The Superior Court Appeal

Peters appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. The Court went en banc to hear the case, meaning that nine judges decided to hear it instead of a normal panel of three. On appeal, Peters challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, particularly the finding of "malice" necessary to sustain the convictions for third-degree murder and aggravated assault.

The Superior Court affirmed. The court rejected Peters’s arguments, finding that his conduct demonstrated malice, which is a "conscious disregard for an unjustified and extremely high risk" to human life. The court highlighted the following aggravating factors:

The defendant's high level of intoxication, with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.151%.
His decision to drive at extreme speeds, peaking at 115 miles per hour, despite being aware of his impairment.
His failure to brake until less than half a second before impact.
The extended period of reckless driving leading up to the crash, during which Peters nearly collided with other vehicles, was offered a ride home before he began to drive, and had trouble exiting the parking garage.

The court distinguished this case from other DUI-related cases by emphasizing that the defendant had multiple opportunities to recognize the risk he was creating but chose to continue his dangerous behavior. The court concluded that the defendant’s sustained recklessness and the extreme danger he posed justified the jury's finding of malice.

Notably, the lead opinion drew a dissent in which multiple judges joined. The dissent opined that the Commonwealth had shown no behavior which was not inherent in the crime of homicide by DUI or driving drunk in general, and so the Commonwealth had failed to show malice. Peters had also not been warned by anyone else - although other motorists had called 911, he did not know that they had called 911. The dissent also emphasized that as dangerous as drunk driving may be, the Supreme Court has generally held that drunk driving does not provide the evidence of malice necessary for murder. Therefore, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court may well grant review of this decision.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?

Criminal Defense Attorney Zak Goldstein — Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

Zak Goldstein 7/27/24 Zak Goldstein 7/27/24

PA Superior Court: Evidence of Subsequent Shooting Too Prejudicial to Admit to Prove Consciousness of Guilt in Murder Case

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Carter, holding that the trial court properly excluded evidence that the defendant shot someone else who was potentially involved in the murder with which he was charged. The Superior Court found that the trial court properly excluded the evidence because although it was relevant, its admission would have been too unfairly prejudicial to the defendant. At the same time, the Superior Court held that the trial court erred in precluding evidence that the defendant left Pennsylvania and went to Atlanta shortly after the murder.

The Facts of Carter

In 2021, the defendant and three others were drinking and hanging out in New Castle, PA. They spent some time at one of their girlfriend’s houses, and then they decided to drive to Pittsburgh. There had been an argument between the defendant and the victim prior to the trip to Pittsburgh, but it seemed like they had resolved the issue. Nonetheless, on the way to Pittsburgh, the defendant shot the victim three times, killing him. The group then fled the scene, and a different girlfriend picked them up. The defendant told her that he did the shooting. The next day, the defendant and one of the others flew from Philadelphia to Atlanta, Georgia. While in Atlanta, the defendant shot that man in the head while they were in an Uber, but the man survived that shooting.

The 404(b) “Other Bad Acts” Motion

The Commonwealth moved to introduce evidence of the Georgia shooting under Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 404(b), arguing it demonstrated the defendant’s consciousness of guilt, flight, and a common scheme or plan.

Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 404(b)(2) sometimes permits the admission of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts for purposes other than to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. Rule 404(b) provides:

(b)  Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts.
   (1)  Prohibited Uses. Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or 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.
   (3)  Notice in a Criminal Case. In a criminal case the prosecutor must provide reasonable written notice in advance of trial so that the defendant has a fair opportunity to meet it, or during trial if the court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown, of the specific nature, permitted use, and reasoning for the use of any such evidence the prosecutor intends to introduce at trial.

In this case, the Commonwealth argued the evidence should be admitted to show:

Consciousness of Guilt: Evidence of the defendant’s flight to Georgia could arguably be admitted to demonstrate his consciousness of guilt. Pennsylvania courts generally recognize that flight from the area can indicate a defendant's consciousness of guilt.

Res Gestae: Evidence of the Georgia shooting could be considered part of the res gestae (or complete story). That exception allows the admission of other acts that are part of the natural development of the facts and help to tell the complete story of the case.

Common Scheme, Plan, or Design: The similarities between the shootings of the decedent and the other man in Atlanta, both involving victims shot in the head in moving vehicles, could be found to establish a common scheme or plan.

Notably, Rule 404(b) only allows the admission of prior bad acts evidence “if the probative value of the evidence outweighs its potential for unfair prejudice.” This part was key to the defendant’s success in this appeal.

Although the evidence of the Georgia shooting was relevant under these exceptions, it was ultimately excluded by the trial court under Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 403 due to the risk of unfair prejudice outweighing its probative value. The Superior Court affirmed this exclusion for the Georgia shooting but allowed the evidence of flight to come in under Rule 404(b)(2).

The trial court held a hearing on the Commonwealth’s pre-trial motion in liming and excluded this evidence. The Commonwealth appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

The Superior Court Appeal

The Superior Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Superior Court ruled that the trial court should have allowed the Commonwealth to introduce evidence that the defendant fled to Georgia as this flight would show consciousness of guilt, but it agreed that the evidence of the subsequent shooting was too unfairly prejudicial to admit in his Pennsylvania murder trial.

The Superior Court recognized that the shooting evidence was relevant. It agreed with the Commonwealth that the evidence of Carter shooting the other man who had been present for the first murder in Atlanta was relevant for proving consciousness of guilt and as part of the res gestae (or showing the complete story). The Court also found the similarities between the two shootings (both occurring in moving vehicles and targeting victims seated in the front passenger seats) justified admitting the evidence to establish a common scheme or plan.

At the same time, the Court recognized that relevance is not the only issue in terms of whether evidence of some other crime is admissible under Pa.R.Crim.P. 404(b). Instead, a court must also evaluate whether the unfair prejudice of admitting the other bad act outweighs the relevance that the evidence relating to the other crime may have. Here, the allegation that the defendant shot someone else in Atlanta was about as prejudicial as it could get, and it did not add a lot to the Commonwealth’s case in terms of proving that he committed the murder in Pennsylvania. Thus, despite the potential relevance of the Georgia shooting, the Superior Court upheld the trial court's decision to exclude it due to its potential to unfairly prejudice the jury against the defendant. The Court noted the risk of the jury convicting Carter on an improper basis rather than impartially weighing the evidence related to the decedent’s murder.

Accordingly, when the Commonwealth files a motion to admit evidence of some other crime or bad act, it is important for the defense attorney to argue not just that the evidence is not relevant, but also that even if it is relevant, the unfair prejudice of telling the jury the defendant committed another serious crime outweighs any relevance the other bad act may have.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Lawyers — Goldstein Mehta LLC Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers