Attorney Demetra Mehta Honored with Lawyers of Distinction Award

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
3/17/2017

The Lawyers of Distinction is pleased to announce that Demetra Mehta of Philadelphia, PA, has been certified as a member. The Lawyers of Distinction is recognized as the fastest growing community of distinguished lawyers in the United States. Membership is limited to the top 10% of attorneys in the United States. Members are accepted based upon objective evaluation of an attorney’s qualifications, license, reputation, experience, and disciplinary history. Please see our website www.lawyersofdistinction.com for further details concerning membership qualification. 

Demetra Mehta, Esq. is a Philadelphia criminal defense lawyer. She has tried hundreds of cases and is dedicated to providing the best possible legal advice to her clients.

After graduating with a Master of Science degree in Mathematics, Ms. Mehta went on to earn her Juris Doctor at the Temple University Beasley School of Law. There, she earned a spot on Temple's nationally ranked trial team when she was just a second-year student. She was also awarded the Victor A. Jaczun Award for Excellence in Trial Advocacy, and made Fellow of the Rubin Public Interest Law Honor Society for her work with the Innocence Project and her time spent volunteering at the Campaign for Working Families.

After graduating from Temple University, Ms. Mehta worked as a consultant for FTI Consulting, a business advisory firm headquartered in Washington, DC.  There, she advised many Fortune 500 companies on the e-discovery process, often saving millions of dollars in document review costs.

But she felt something was missing. When she got a call from the prestigious Defender Association of Philadelphia to join their ranks as an Assistant Defender, she jumped at the chance to get into court and start fighting for her clients.

In the four years Ms. Mehta spent as an attorney at the Defender Association, she took hundreds of cases to trial. Her dedication and skills were recognized by her supervisors who promoted her to the position of "major felony" trial attorney.  Ms. Mehta left the Defender association as an excellent advocate and accomplished litigator.

When the opportunity to start her own practice with Zak Goldstein materialized, she was excited to work alongside a fellow, passionate litigator who cared about her clients' constitutional rights as much as she does.

###

Lawyers of Distinction shall not offer membership to more than 10% of attorneys in any given state. Lawyers of Distinction uses it own independent criteria, including both objective and subjective factors in determining if an attorney can be recognized as being within the top 10% of attorneys in the United States in their respective field. This designation is based upon the proprietary analysis of the Lawyers of Distinction organization alone, and is not intended to be endorsed by any of the 50 United States Bar Associations or The District of Columbia Bar Association.

Can the police search a guest in a home when executing a search warrant?

Can The Police Search Me If I Am A Visitor In A House? 

A search warrant for a particular location gives the police broad authority to search within that location for evidence of contraband like drugs, guns, and other incriminating items. There are, of course, limits, and in Pennsylvania, even searches which are supported by a warrant may be subject to challenge with a Motion to Suppress. In addition to the possibility of attacking the legality of the warrant itself, there may be other grounds for suppressing the results of a search even if the police had a warrant in cases where the police officers exceed the scope of the warrant.

For example, even when the police have a search warrant, the authority to search is generally limited to areas within the property where the police could reasonably expect that the evidence being sought could be found. For example, if the police are looking for guns, then they could not search a container which is too small to contain a gun. Likewise, the police probably could not search the contents of your computer in order to find a gun unless the search warrant specifically gives them authority to analyze the data on the computer.

Searches of Visitors Pursuant to a Search Warrant for the House

Philadelphia Criminal Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esq.

An important issue arises when there are guests present in a home when the police show up to execute a search warrant. As a general rule, under Pennsylvania law, the police may not search the physical person and clothing of the people in the home unless those people are identified in the warrant or the police have other independent probable cause to arrest those people and conduct a search incident to arrest. This means that if the police have a search warrant for the house, and you happen to merely be there when the police show up to execute the warrant, then the police may not search you and the clothing that you are wearing merely because they have a warrant for the house. If you are described in the warrant or they have existing probable cause to arrest you, then they could search you, but if you happen to merely be a guest in a property which is the target of a search warrant, the police do not have the authority to search you without more than just the warrant.

Although the Pennsylvania Constitution provides strong protections to visitors in a home even during the execution of a search warrant, it is important to note that the standard is different in federal court because the federal courts have determined that police may detain and potentially search everyone in a home during the execution of a search warrant for officer safety purposes.

Searches of Clothing and Bags in the House when Police Have a Warrant  

The issue becomes trickier when there are items of clothing or bags which could contain the contraband being sought which are not physically on the person in the house. This was the situation which arose on appeal in a recent case in the Superior Court, Commonwealth v. Petty. In Petty, the officers were executing a search warrant for drugs in a house in Philadelphia. Mr. Petty happened to be a guest in the house, and when police entered the house, Petty was in bed in the rear bedroom. Unfortunately for Mr. Petty, he did not have his pants on. Police ordered Petty out of the bed, and as Petty complied and tried to put on his pants, which had been lying on the floor, police first took the pants before Mr. Petty could pick them up, and the police searched them, recovering drugs.

Petty’s criminal defense lawyer filed a motion to suppress the drugs, alleging that the police in effect had searched his person because the police knew that the pants were his. Because police had no prior information on Petty, this search would have exceeded the scope of the warrant because Petty was not identified in the warrant. Therefore, police did not have authority to search Mr. Petty or his clothing.

The Philadelphia Municipal Court granted the motion to suppress, but unfortunately for Mr. Petty, the Superior Court reversed. The Superior Court concluded that the search was permissible because police officers who are executing a search warrant have the authority to search any container which could contain contraband. The court noted:

Holding that clothing removed from a person and placed nearby is an extension of his person rather than simply an article of personal property on the premises interjects an element . . . that requires police to guess whether items in proximity to a person not identified in a warrant would soon be used by that person. Because Appellee did not physically possess the pants when officers found them, police were authorized to search them.

Our Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers offer a 15-minute, complimentary criminal defense strategy session. We know that picking up the phone and calling an attorney can be intimidating, so in this video, Attorney Goldstein explains what you can expect when you call us. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with one of our criminal defense lawyers.

Although Petty lost on appeal, the Superior Court’s decision reaffirms the holding that police may not search guests in a home merely because they have a warrant to search that home. As always, if you are facing criminal charges, it is critical that you hire a criminal defense attorney who focuses his or her practice on criminal law and stays on top of new developments in the law. If you are facing charges in Pennsylvania or New Jersey, call 267-225-2545 for a free 15-minute criminal defense strategy session with one of our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers.

Is Mace a Deadly Weapon Under the Aggravated Assault Statute?

Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon in Pennsylvania

An issue that frequently comes up in Aggravated Assault prosecutions is whether or not the defendant used a deadly weapon in the commission of an assault that resulted in bodily injury. In cases where the defendant is charged with attempting to cause or knowingly or intentionally causing bodily injury, the Commonwealth may seek a conviction for Aggravated Assault as a felony of the second degree instead of Simple Assault if the Commonwealth can also show that the defendant used a deadly weapon in the commission of the offense.

Bodily injury is defined as "impairment of physical condition or substantial pain," and a deadly weapon is defined as "any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, or any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or serious bodily injury, or any other device or instrumentality which, in the manner in which it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or serious bodily injury." In cases involving a knife or a gun, it is relatively simple for the Commonwealth to show that a deadly weapon was involved for purposes of the Aggravated Assault (F2) statute because those weapons are clearly identified in the statute. There may be other potential defenses, but it will likely not be a defense that the weapon involved was not deadly.

what is a deadly weapon in pennsylvania? 

However, when the defendant is alleged to have used some sort of non-traditional weapon, the issue becomes much more complicated because any object can become a deadly weapon depending on how it is used. Under the statute, if the object is used or intended to be used in a manner calculated or likely to produce death or serious bodily injury, then the object could qualify as a deadly weapon even if it is not something that would normally be thought of as a weapon. Accordingly, appellate courts have found that even such seemingly harmless objects as eggs can be deadly weapons if the eggs are thrown at moving cars. In that scenario, an egg could be a deadly weapon because the manner in which the egg was used could lead to a car accident which could produce or serious bodily injury. 

IS MACE A DEADLY WEAPON? 

Recently, in Commonwealth v. Chambers, the Pennsylvania Superior Court concluded that mace (pepper spray) could qualify as a deadly weapon under the statute depending on how it is used. In Chambers, the defendant was convicted for Aggravated Assault. The trial court found that Chambers had engaged in a fight with the complainant, and during the fight, a co-conspirator sprayed the complainant with pepper spray. Chambers and a number of other people continued to punch and kick the complainant, leaving the complainant with a concussion, lacerations which required stitches, a burnt retina in his eye, and some broken bones. The trial court found Chambers guilty of Aggravated Assault with a deadly weapon on the theories of co-conspirator and accomplice liability because one of Chambers co-defendants used the mace. Chambers appealed, arguing that the mace did not constitute a deadly weapon because it is "an instrument which is not inherently a deadly weapon" and because the Commonwealth did not present any evidence regarding the chemical composition of the mace. 

The Superior Court rejected Chambers argument. The court accepted the trial court's conclusion that even if the mace was not inherently a deadly weapon, it became a deadly weapon because of the manner in which it was used against the complainant. Although mace may not cause permanent injuries on its own, the mace in Chambers was used to incapacitate the complainant so that the group could continue to beat him and cause more serious injuries. Therefore, the mace was used in a manner which made it more likely that the complainant would suffer death or serious bodily injury because he could not defend himself from the ongoing assault. 

Therefore, depending on the circumstances, an item like mace may or may not be a deadly weapon for purposes of the Aggravated Assault statute. If the defendant simply sprays mace in the complainant's eyes and the complainant does not suffer serious bodily injury and there is no further assault, then the mace may not be a deadly weapon. If the mace is used to incapacitate the complainant so that the complainant can be injured, then the mace may qualify as a deadly weapon. 

WHAT IS serious bodily injury?

In cases involving "serious bodily injury," the defendant will typically be charged with Aggravated Assault as a felony of the first degree, and whether or not the defendant used a deadly weapon will not be as relevant. However, it could still be relevant at sentencing because there are sentencing enhancements when a deadly weapon is used or possessed during the comission of an offense. Serious bodily injury is defined by the Pennsylvania Crimes Code as "bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ." Therefore, serious bodily injury is typically going to involve things like broken bones, brain damage, organ failure, shootings, and stabbings. In other words, serious bodily injury involves permanent or at least lasting damage. 

HOW OUR PHILADELPHIA ASSAULT LAWYERS CAN HELP

Regardless of whether the defendant is charged with Aggravated Assault as a felony of the first or second degree, Aggravated Assault is an extremely serious charge. Our Philadelphia assault lawyers have successfully defended many clients charged with all types of assault. The most important thing to do if you are facing assault charges is to act quickly. Do not delay and allow valuable evidence and witnesses to be lost. Video surveillance may often start to be deleted in as little as 24 hours. If you are charged with any type of assault in Philadelphia or the surrounding counties, call the Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers of Goldstein Mehta LLC at 267-225-2545 for a complimentary 15-minute criminal defense strategy session.  

Philadelphia Assault Lawyers

Supreme Court Update – Clear Evidence of Racial Bias on Part of Jurors May Now Lead to Reversal

In a decision announced earlier this week, the United States Supreme Court opened a hole in state and federal jury deliberation secrecy laws for defendants who can show through clear evidence that the defendant was denied a fair trial due to racial bias against the defendant’s race on the part of one or more jurors. In Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, the Supreme Court held that when clear evidence emerges following a jury verdict that racial bias played a part in jury deliberations, the trial judge must make an exception to ordinary jury secrecy rules and determine whether the defendant was denied a fair trial. Although this will often be a difficult showing to make, the Court’s decision provides a defendant with the potential for relief when it can be shown that the jury’s decision to convict was based in part on the race of the defendant.

In previous decisions, the overwhelming majority of state and federal appellate courts had reached the opposite conclusion and prohibited defendants from attacking jury verdicts based on after-discovered evidence of racism on the part of the jurors. For example, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently reached the opposite conclusion in the case of Commonwealth v. Steele. Steele arose in the context of a Post-Conviction Relief Act Petition. In Steele, the Petitioner alleged that his due process rights and right to a fair and impartial jury were violated by the racial prejudice of one of the jurors. After Steele was convicted of murder, he learned from one of the jurors that other jurors had commented on his race early in the trial and also made fun of his defense attorney. Jurors had also made various racist remarks during deliberations and suggested that he should hang. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied the PCRA Petition, noting that Pennsylvania has a “no impeachment” rule with respect to jury deliberations. The Steele court noted:  

Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict, … a juror may not testify as to any matter or statement occurring during the course of the jury's deliberations or to the effect of anything upon that or any other juror's mind or emotions in reaching a decision upon the verdict or concerning the juror's mental processes in connection therewith, and a juror's affidavit or evidence of any statement by the juror about any of these subjects may not be received.

The only exception to the “no impeachment” rule is for cases in which there is evidence that some outside force influenced juror deliberations. For example, allegations of bribery or threats could be used to attack a jury verdict. Accordingly, prior to Pena-Rodriguez, a Pennsylvania jury verdict could not be challenged based on even overt racism on the part of the jurors.

Pena-Rodriguez appears to completely overrule Pennsylvania’s “no impeachment” rule as set forth in Steele. In Pena-Rodriguez, the defendant was convicted by a jury of harassment and unlawful sexual contact. After the trial, two jurors told the defendant’s lawyer that during deliberations, one of the jurors had expressed anti-Hispanic bias towards the defendant his alibi witness. Both of these jurors signed affidavits, and Pena-Rodriguez' criminal defense attorneys moved for a new trial. The trial court, however, denied the motion for a new trial because Colorado had a similar “no impeachment” rule.

Following a number of appeals through the Colorado state appellate system which upheld the trial court’s ruling, the United States Supreme Court reversed. The Court ruled that “where a juror makes a clear statement indicating that he or she relied on racial stereotypes or animus to convict a criminal defendant, the Sixth Amendment requires that the no-impeachment rule give way in order to permit the trial court to consider the evidence of the juror’s statement and nay resulting denial of the jury trial guarantee.” Accordingly, the Court remanded the case to the trial court for the court to conduct a hearing into whether the defendant received a fair trial.

The Court ruled:

Before the no-impeachment bar can be set aside to allow further judicial inquiry, there must be a threshold showing that one or more jurors made statements exhibiting overt racial bias that cast serious doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the jury’s deliberations and resulting verdict. To qualify, the statement must tend to show that racial animus was a significant motivating factor in the juror’s vote to convict. Whether the threshold showing has been satisfied is committed to the substantial discretion of the trial court in light of all the circumstances, including the content and timing of the alleged statements and the reliability of the proffered evidence.

Given the Supreme Court’s broad ruling, it is clear that Pennsylvania’s “no impeachment” rule with respect to juror deliberations is now unconstitutional in violation of the Sixth Amendment. The practical effect of this decision for most defendants may be limited because it is fairly uncommon for defense counsel to have much of an opportunity to speak with jurors following trial or for jurors to come forward with this type of information. However, it does open the door for challenges to jury verdicts in cases where there is clear evidence that racism played a role in the deliberations. Further, this case illustrates the importance of comprehensive voir dire or questioning of the jurors during jury selection in the hopes that biased jurors may be kept off the jury.   

As always, if you are facing criminal charges, it is critical that you hire a criminal defense attorney who focuses his or her practice on criminal law and stays on top of new developments in the law. If you are facing criminal charges in Pennsylvania or New Jersey, call 267-225-2545 for a free 15-minute criminal defense strategy session with one of our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers.