PA Superior Court: Police May Stop and Search You If You’re Bleeding from a Gunshot Wound

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Edwards, holding that Philadelphia Police did not violate the defendant’s rights when they stopped and searched him because he was walking down the street while bleeding from a gunshot wound. The Superior Court relied on the community caretaker exception to the warrant requirement in finding that police did not violate the defendant's rights when they stopped him even though they did not see him personally engaged in criminal activity. 

The Facts of Commonwealth v. Edwards

In Edwards, Philadelphia Police Officers were on routine patrol at around 1 am in the Kensington area. One of the officers noticed a black male, the defendant, limping in the bike lane on the west side of the street. He was walking towards the police car. As he got closer to the car, one of the officers noticed that he had blood coming down the left side of his leg. After noticing the blood, the officer attempted to get the defendant’s attention, but he ignored the officer and kept limping at a fast pace. The defendant ignored the officers as they backed up their car and tried to talk to him.

Eventually, police exited the patrol car and told the defendant to stop multiple times. The defendant initially did not stop, but he eventually turned and faced the officers. However, he continued to back away from them even after being told they were only interested in bringing him to the hospital for his leg injury. He told the officer he had been shot by a Hispanic male around the corner and that the officers should go look for the male.

The officers moved closer to the defendant, and the defendant then reached for his right jacket pocket while backing away. Based on this movement, the officers believed that the defendant was trying to hide something in his right jacket pocket. The officers also testified that the area was a high crime area known for drug sales, stabbings, shootings, and robberies. Therefore, the officers frisked the defendant, felt a hard object that they knew to be a gun in the right pocket, and then removed the gun from the defendant’s jacket. Police arrested the defendant and charged him with various VUFA charges, including possessing a concealed firearm without a license, possessing a firearm on the streets of Philadelphia, and felon in possession of a firearm. 

The Motion to Suppress the Gun

After prosecutors charged the defendant with various gun charges, the defendant’s defense attorney filed a motion to suppress the gun. The motion to suppress alleged that police did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop and search the defendant because they did not see him engaged in any criminal activity and he did not ask for their help. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, finding both that police actually had probable cause to arrest him and that the police were justified in their actions due to the community caretaker doctrine. After the trial court denied the motion to suppress, the defendant proceeded by way of bench trial. The trial judge found him guilty and sentenced him to state prison after it was revealed at sentencing that he had shot himself. The trial judge also made negative comments at sentencing about the fact that although defense counsel highlighted the defendant's extensive family support, the defendant's mother was present but did not speak on his behalf. 

The Criminal Appeal

Following sentencing, the defendant filed a notice of appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. On appeal, the defendant challenged both the denial of the Motion to Suppress as well as the trial court’s sentence. Unfortunately for the defendant, the Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling both with respects to the Motion to Suppress and the sentencing issue. The Superior Court relied heavily on the community caretaker doctrine as explained by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in the recent case of Commonwealth v. Livingstone.

What is the community caretaker exception?

In general, the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions require the police to get a search warrant before stopping and searching someone. However, there are many exceptions to this general rule. For example, police do not have to obtain a search warrant in order to stop someone on the street and conduct a frisk when they have reasonable suspicion that the person is engaged in criminal activity. Police also may conduct a full search of a pedestrian when they have probable cause to believe that a person has committed a crime. In addition to these exceptions for investigatory stops, the Supreme Court has also created the community caretaker doctrine or community caretaker exception to the warrant requirement. 

The community caretaker doctrine anticipates the possibility that police may be motivated by a desire to render aid or assistance rather than the investigation of criminal activity. Appellate courts have reasoned that police do not just investigate and prosecute crime – they also provide first aid, intervene in crises, and maintain the peace. Accordingly, police do not always need to get a warrant in order to take action when they believe that someone is in need of assistance.

In order for this exception to apply, the police must be able to point to specific, objective, and articulable facts that would reasonably suggest to an experienced officer that a citizen is in need of assistance. When police can do that, they may be justified in conducting a stop or search without reasonable suspicion or probable cause that criminal activity is afoot. The police action must also be independent of the investigation of criminal activity, meaning it cannot be a pretext for conducting a search without the necessary level of suspicion. Finally, the level of intrusion must be commensurate with the perceived need for assistance. Thus, in Livingstone, the Supreme Court summarized the rule as follows: 

“To summarize, in order for a seizure to be justified under the public servant exception to the warrant requirement under the community caretaking doctrine, the officer must point to specific, objective, and articulable facts which would reasonably suggest to an experienced officer that assistance was needed; the police action must be independent from the detection, investigation, and acquisition of criminal evidence, and based on a consideration of the surrounding circumstances, the action taken by police must be tailored to rendering assistance or mitigating the peril.” 

The Superior Court's Decision

Here, the Superior Court found that the police acted reasonably and pursuant to the community caretaking doctrine. They saw the defendant limping, with a bloody leg, at 1:20 am in a dangerous area. They approached and offered medical assistance. The court found that they would have been neglecting their duties had they not done so. Further, the officer identified specific, objective, and articulable facts that would reasonably suggest to an experienced officer that a citizen was in need of assistance. The court also found that they were not looking for criminal evidence, meaning their actions were independent from the detection, investigation, and acquisition of criminal evidence. They were planning on taking the defendant to the hospital. They only frisked the defendant because he bladed his body away from the officer and placed his hand in his pocket as if he were trying to conceal something. Finally, the level of intrusion was commensurate with the need for assistance. The police had merely stopped to offer aid. Only after the defendant acted strangely by backing away, turning his body, and reaching in his pocket, did the police conduct any kind of search. The court found that that search was a legitimate safety frisk and upheld the decision of the trial court. 

The Superior Court also rejected the defendant’s sentencing challenge. Here, the defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him when the trial judge pointed out that the defendant’s mother was present for sentencing but did not speak on his behalf. After the trial judge made that remark, the defense attorney asked to have the mother speak, but the trial judge refused to permit her to speak. The defense ordinarily must file a post-sentence motion explaining any challenges to a sentence in order to be able to appeal the discretionary aspects of a sentence, but here, the Superior Court found that the issue was not waived for appeal because the defendant’s attorney had attempted to call the mother as a witness but been prevented from doing so. The Superior Court reached the merits of the issue, but affirmed the sentence because the judge considered a number of factors and did not base the sentence only on the mother’s failure to testify at sentencing. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion.  

Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help.

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense

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, and Attempted 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. 

PA Superior Court: Trial Court Properly Granted Commonwealth's Tender Years Motion

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein

The Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Strafford. This decision clarifies 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 5985, which governs when a child-victim's out-of-court statement may be introduced by the prosecution under the Tender Years Hearsay Exception and when a child-victim may testify via closed-circuit television instead of in open court. 

The Facts of Commonwealth v. Strafford

In Strafford, prosecutors alleged that the defendant sexually abused the complainant, who was eight years old, between June 2013 and December 2014. According to the complainant, the defendant would frequently stay over at the complainant’s home. During these overnight visits, the defendant would regularly touch the complainant’s genitals and perform oral sex on him. In December 2014, the complainant disclosed to his older brother and his mother that the defendant was molesting him. Upon hearing this, the mother called the police. Police arranged for the complainant to provide a video-recorded statement to a child forensic interviewer.

Prosecutors charged the defendant with Indecent Assault of a Person less than 13 years of age, Corruption of a Minor, and Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse with a Child. On March 18, 2015, the Commonwealth filed a petition to admit out-of-court statements under the Tender Years Hearsay Exception and a Motion to Allow a Child Witness to Testify Under Pennsylvania Uniform Child Witness Testimony by Alternative Methods Act. The trial court granted both of these motions.

Following a jury trial, the court convicted the defendant of the above-mentioned charges. The court sentenced him to six to twelve years' incarceration followed by five years probation. The defendant will also have to register as a sex offender upon his release. Because the defendant was found guilty of enumerated Tier III offenses, he will be required to register with the Pennsylvania State Police for life. On November 18, 2016, he filed a timely appeal.

What is the Tender Years Hearsay Exception?

42 Pa. C.S.A. § 5985.1 provides the Tender Years Hearsay Exception which was at issue in this appeal. The Tender Years Hearsay Exception to the rule against hearsay applies to children who are twelve years or younger at the time of the statement. It permits prosecutors to introduce some previously recorded statements from these children which would ordinarily be hearsay. However, this does not mean that all statements made by children twelve or younger qualify for this exception. Specifically, it only applies to certain offenses (i.e. cases involving sexual assault). Additionally, the statement that is to be introduced must be relevant and have sufficient indicia of reliability.

A court will make a determination as to whether or not the statement has the sufficient reliability. To make this determination, the court will look at the time, circumstances, content of the statement, the statement’s spontaneity, the declarant’s mental state, consistency in repetition, and lack of motive to fabricate. The main consideration for a trial court is to determine whether the statement is reliable. In making the determination, the trial court is granted significant leeway in admitting this statement. A trial court’s decision will only be overturned on appeal if the defendant is able to show that the trial court abused its discretion. Typically, this is very difficult standard to show and thus the trial court will likely not be overturned if it allows said statement to be introduced. If the trial court concludes that the statement is relevant, reliable, and the child is going to testify at trial, then the prosecution may introduce the prior out-of-court statement pursuant to this exception to the hearsay rule. 

Note: Since the Superior Court decided this case, the rule has been changed. Tender Years now applies to children who were 16 years old or younger at the time of the statement.

Children Testifying by Contemporaneous Alternative Method

42 Pa. C.S.A. § 5985 allows for juvenile victims to testify via a closed circuit television in a criminal case. When this occurs, the prosecutor, judge, defense attorney, and other enumerated individuals may be allowed to be in the same room as the child witness. However, the defendant is specifically not allowed to be in the room. The defendant (and the jury) is able to watch and listen to the child’s testimony via closed circuit television, but the child witness will note able to see the defendant during his or her testimony. The defense attorney is still allowed to cross-examine the child.

However, before this can occur, the trial court must make a determination that if the child were to testify in the defendant’s presence, the child would suffer serious emotional distress that would substantially impair the child’s ability to reasonably communicate. In making this determination, the trial court may observe or question the child inside or outside the courtroom; or hear testimony from a parent, custodian, or any other person that has dealt with the child “in a medical or therapeutic setting.”

Superior Court Holds that Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Allowing Child to Testify via Closed-Circuit Television and Admitting Out-of-Court Statement

In Strafford, the Superior Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the child to testify via closed-circuit television and admitting the out-of-court statement. In terms of allowing the complainant to testify via closed-circuit, the Superior Court agreed with the trial court’s conclusion that the child would have suffered serious emotional distress had he testified.

In support of this conclusion, the Superior Court referenced the trial court’s opinion which stated that subsequent to the complainant’s disclosure, he would frequently have nightmares, wet the bed, and sleep with his parents. According to this mother, all of this was atypical of the complainant’s usual behavior. Additionally, when complainant was told he would need to testify, he would get moody and uncomfortable. Complainant also threatened to “run out of the room” if he saw the defendant. He also told his mother he did not want to see him. The complainant also had difficulty in school following this incident according to his mother. Based on these facts, the Superior Court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the complainant to testify via closed-circuit television.

Additionally, the Superior Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it granted the Commonwealth’s Tender Years Motion to admit the complainant’s out-of-court statements. The Superior Court reasoned that the complainant made a spontaneous statement to his brother about being molested by the defendant. Additionally, there was nothing on the record to suggest that complainant had a motive to fabricate these allegations. Accordingly, the Superior Court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed the complainant’s out-of-court statements to be introduced.

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, and Attempted 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. 

PA Superior Court: Prosecutors May Introduce Evidence that Defendant and Recanting Eyewitness Were Incarcerated Together

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Thomas, holding that the trial court properly permitted the Commonwealth to introduce evidence that the defendant and an eyewitness who later recanted were incarcerated in the same prison before trial together in order to suggest that the eyewitness recanted out of fear of the defendant. The Superior Court allowed this testimony despite the fact that the there was no concrete evidence to show that the defendant and the eyewitness had communicated while they were incarcerated together or that the defendant had pressured the witness in any way.

The facts of Commonwealth v. Thomas

Philadelphia Prosecutors charged the defendant in Thomas with first degree murder, carrying a firearm without a license (VUFA Sec. 6106), and possessing an instrument of crime. The jury found him guilty, and the trial court immediately sentenced him to the mandatory life in prison without parole on the murder charge as well as an aggregate 4.5 to 12 years of incarceration on the other charges.

The evidence at trial showed that the defendant, the decedent, and a group of other men were playing dice in Philadelphia. At some point during the game, the men concluded that the decedent was cheating. One player angrily walked away from the game, but the defendant told him that he was going to handle it. Witnesses testified that later, while the decedent was bending over to roll the dice, the defendant pulled a gun and shot at him from behind, causing the decedent to fall to the ground. The defendant then shot him two more times in the face. Two of the witnesses who testified that the defendant committed the murder were a man named K.F. and a man named E.M. Philadelphia Police responded to the scene and transported the decedent to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

Although K.F. gave a statement to police indicating that the defendant committed the murder, K.F. later recanted that statement and wrote a letter claiming that it was not the defendant who actually committed the murder. In response, prosecutors introduced evidence at trial that K.F. and the defendant were incarcerated at the same jail two months prior to trial. The defense attorney objected on the basis that telling the jury that the defendant was incarcerated would suggest to the jury that the defendant was a criminal, but the trial court overruled the objection and allowed the prosecution to introduce the evidence despite this potential for unfair prejudice against the defendant.  

The Superior Court Appeal

After the jury convicted the defendant, he appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. As one of the main issues, he claimed that the trial court erred in admitting the evidence that he and K.F. were incarcerated in the same prison at some point prior to the trial and K.F.’s recantation. K.F. had previously claimed in a video-taped statement that he watched the defendant shoot and kill the decedent. However, K.F. was subsequently arrested on unrelated charges of his own. Within one month of his arrest and incarceration in the same jail as the defendant, K.F. wrote a letter recanting his video-taped statement. Therefore, the Commonwealth argued that the incarceration in the same jail was relevant to show both the defendant’s consciousness of his own guilt and to explain why K.F. recanted his prior statement.

On appeal, the Superior Court agreed. It recognized that the courts have long recognized that any attempt by a defendant to interfere with a witness’s testimony is admissible to show a defendant’s consciousness of guilt. Additionally, the Commonwealth may cross-examine a witness in an attempt to show that there are reasons, such as fear or intimidation, why a witness may have changed his or her story. Therefore, the Commonwealth’s cross-examination of K.F. was relevant to show both the defendant’s potential consciousness of guilt and why K.F. may have changed his statement.

At the same time, the court recognized that there could be some prejudicial effect to informing the jury that the defendant was incarcerated prior to trial. However, the court found that the trial judge sufficiently eliminated the risk of unfair prejudice to the defendant by providing a cautionary instruction. In the instruction, the trial judge informed the jury that the jury should not consider the defendant to be a bad person or a person of bad character merely because he had been arrested and incarcerated pending trial. The judge made it clear to the jury that the only reason the defendant was in jail was because he was awaiting trial for this case, not because he was serving a sentence on some other case. The judge further instructed the jury not to draw any conclusions whatsoever from the mere fact that the defendant was in jail pending trial. Therefore, the Superior Court found that the trial court properly allowed the prosecution to ask these questions. It found the defendant’s other issues waived and upheld the conviction.

The court’s opinion, of course, completely ignored the fact that it was the Commonwealth’s fault that the defendant and the witness were held in the same jail. Philadelphia has at least four county prisons in which a defendant can be held while awaiting trial, and the jails have procedures by which inmates can be held separately from each other so that they do not have contact with each other. Prosecutors have the ability to house inmates in different counties or states when necessary and routinely do so. Here, the case suggests that the Commonwealth did nothing to inform the prison that the two inmates should be housed in different facilities. The Commonwealth also appears to have introduced no evidence that the two inmates actually came into contact with each other while incarcerated or that the defendant did anything to make the witness change his story. Nonetheless, the Superior Court seems to have ignored these basic facts in finding in favor of the Commonwealth.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Attorneys

If you are facing criminal charges, we can help. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers have successfully defended thousands of clients at trial and on appeal. We offer a free 15-minute criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. If you have been arrested or may be under investigation, call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.

Full Acquittal: Attorney Goldstein Wins Not Guilty Verdict in Attempted Murder/Carjacking Case

Criminal Defense Attorneys Zak Goldstein and Demetra Mehta

The Philadelphia criminal defense attorneys of Goldstein Mehta LLC have continued to find success on behalf of their clients in the courtroom, winning jury trials and motions to suppress in serious cases. Outside of the courtroom, we are also a source of insightful legal analysis on criminal defense issues in the news. Recently, our defense attorneys have won criminal cases involving charges ranging from Attempted Murder to DUI and Possession with the Intent to Deliver. Some of our recent wins include: 

Commonwealth v. R. R. – Jury Acquits Client of Attempted Murder, Carjacking, and Related Charges

R.R. was charged with Attempted Murder, Robbery of a Motor Vehicle (carjacking), Robbery, Aggravated Assault, Conspiracy, and related gun charges. Prosecutors alleged that R.R. and a friend robbed the complainant after a drug deal, taking his cell phone, car keys, and a small amount of money. R.R. then shot the complainant twice when the complainant tried to demand that R.R. return the car keys. The complainant, however, initially denied to police at the scene that he knew who shot him. He was then briefly interviewed by detectives at the hospital, and he again reiterated that he did not know the person who shot him. 

A few days later, after police allegedly received an anonymous tip that R.R. was the shooter in this incident, Philadelphia detectives re-interviewed the complainant. This time, he told them that R.R., a long-time friend, was the person who shot him and stole his car. A second witness also allegedly came forward a few days later and claimed to have been smoking marijuana with the complainant just before the shooting and that she was still present at the scene when R.R. shot the complainant. She called 911 right at the time of the shooting, but when police arrived at the scene, she refused to give a statement. She also did not claim that R.R. was involved in the shooting for a week or two. When she did finally give a statement, she said that she saw R.R. in the area right before the shooting, but she did not see the shooting itself. At trial, of course, she changed her story and testified that she personally saw R.R. shoot the complainant. In addition to the witness statements, police obtained cell phone records that showed that R.R. and the complainant had exchanged a number of text messages and phone calls directly before the shooting. Police also recovered the complainant’s car a few days later and held it for fingerprints and DNA .  

Based on these later statements of the complainant and the eyewitness in which they claimed that R.R. was the shooter, police arrested R.R. and charged him with Attempted Murder and related charges. R.R. rejected the Commonwealth’s plea offer and decided to proceed by way of a jury trial. At trial, Attorney Goldstein was able to successfully argue to the jury that the witnesses had fabricated their statements. Attorney Goldstein highlighted the fact that the complainant gave two separate statements right after the shooting in which he did not tell police that R.R. shot him. He also impeached the eyewitness on the fact that she did not come forward for weeks and was on probation for theft at the time that she made the statement. He also confronted her with her original statement in which she never said that she actually saw the shooting itself. Finally, Attorney Goldstein called the police department’s own DNA analyst as a witness to testify that the steering wheel and gear shift of the complainant’s car had been tested for DNA and they had been unable to match the DNA to R.R. 

In closing, Attorney Goldstein argued that the Commonwealth had simply failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The DNA did not match R.R., there was no other physical evidence linking him to the crime, and both the complainant and eyewitness had failed to either implicate R.R. or come forward after the shooting. Both have given multiple contradictory statements, and even the assigned detective had given testimony that was impeached through his own police reports. The jury deliberated for approximately two hours before acquitting R.R. of all charges. R.R., who had been held pending the trial, was released from custody. 

Commonwealth v. A.R. – Motion to Suppress Granted in DUI Case

Police arrested and charged A.R. with driving under the influence of marijuana and Xanax. The arresting officer claimed that he saw A.R. driving through Philadelphia with a defective center brake light, which is a violation of the motor vehicle code. Based on the defective brake light, the officer activated his lights and sirens and attempted to pull A.R. over. The officer claimed that A.R. refused to pull over for numerous blocks and seemed like he was trying to flee from the officer. Further, after A.R. did eventually pull over, the officer approached the car and immediately noticed the strong odor of marijuana coming from the vehicle. The officer further testified that A.R. had slurred speech, slow movements, was uncooperative, and admitted to smoking marijuana.

On paper, the case looked very difficult. Fortunately, A.R. retained Attorney Goldstein. Attorney Goldstein litigated a motion to suppress the statement regarding smoking marijuana and the blood test which showed the presence of marijuana and Xanax in A.R.’s blood. At the hearing on the motion, the officer testified that A.R. refused to pull over and immediately blurted out that he had been smoking weed, but the officer’s report directly contradicted his testimony. In his report, the officer specified the exact location at which he claimed he initially saw A.R. operating the car with the broken brake light and the location at which A.R. eventually pulled over. Although the officer testified that A.R. attempted to flee when the officer activated his lights and sirens, Attorney Goldstein was able to use a map of the area to show that in reality, A.R. had pulled over within two or three blocks at most of first coming into contact with the police officer. Given that A.R. actually pulled over within two or three blocks, the testimony that A.R. refused to pull over simply did not make any sense.

Further, the officer eventually admitted that he had not even waited for A.R. to roll down the window but had instead immediately opened the car door himself. Attorney Goldstein argued at the motion to suppress hearing that the Philadelphia Municipal Court judge should reject the officer’s testimony as not credible because of the obvious contradiction provided by the map and find that the officer engaged in an illegal search of the car when he opened the car door himself without giving A.R. the opportunity to roll the window down. Attorney Goldstein also called the police officer who conducted the blood draw at the police station an hour or two after the arrest to testify that he had not recorded any observations of intoxication or odor of marijuana on the report that this second officer created when he came into contact with A.R.

The Municipal Court judge agreed with Attorney Goldstein and granted the motion to suppress. Without the critical blood evidence and incriminating statement, prosecutors had no choice but to withdraw all charges. 

Commonwealth v. K.H. – Judge Acquits Client of Drug Charges Following Bench Trial

Police charged K.H. with Possession with the Intent to Deliver, Knowing and Intentional Possession of a Controlled Substance, Conspiracy, and Possessing an Instrument of Crime. Prosecutors alleged that K.H. and another man sold drugs in Kensington. Philadelphia narcotics officers claimed that they set up surveillance from a vehicle parked down the block and began watching as the alleged buyers approached. The officer claimed that the buyers would each hand money to K.H.’s co-defendant, who was standing on the sidewalk, and then K.H., who was standing in an alley, would hand small items consistent with narcotics packaging to the alleged buyers. As the alleged buyers exited the block, back up officers would arrive and take them into custody. Police successfully stopped four of the five alleged buyers and found that they had drugs on them. Concluding that K.H. and the co-defendant must have been selling drugs, police then moved in to search the alley, the abandoned house nearby, and to arrest the defendants.

Police arrested K.H. and found that he had $40 on him. They arrested the co-defendant, who tried to run. They also found drugs which matched those found on the alleged buyers in the alley, and they found a shotgun in a nearby abandoned house which the surveillance officer claimed that he had seen K.H. briefly enter and exit. K.H. was arrested after walking in and out of a different house on the corner of the block. Officers claimed that they entered and searched both the abandoned house and the house which K.H. had walked out of right before being arrested. 

K.H. immediately retained Goldstein Mehta LLC for his defense. At the preliminary hearing, recognizing that the case would become significantly less serious if K.H. were not facing gun charges, our criminal defense attorneys focused on getting the Possessing Instrument of Crime charge which stemmed from the discovery of the shotgun in the abandoned house dismissed. Attorney Goldstein extensively cross-examined the police witnesses on whether they had ever seen K.H. in possession of the gun, whether the gun was out in the open in the abandoned house, and whether police had attempted to obtain fingerprints or DNA from the shotgun. Because the shotgun was hidden, police never saw K.H. in possession of it, and police had not bothered to conduct any forensic testing on the gun, Attorney Goldstein was successfully able to move for the dismissal of the gun charge. Attorney Goldstein also cross-examined the main police officer on the location from which he was supposedly watching the drug sales, which would become extremely important at trial. 

K.H. then elected to proceed to a bench trial in which the trial judge, instead of a jury, makes the decision as to guilt. At the bench trial, the narcotics officers testified to roughly the same story that they had provided at the preliminary hearing. They claimed that K.H. provided small objects, which later turned out to be drugs, to five alleged buyers. They also claimed that they were successfully able to stop and arrest four of those five buyers and recover the drugs which K.H. had allegedly sold.

On cross-examination, however, Attorney Goldstein was able to use photographs of the crime scene to establish that the officer would not have been able to see into the alley to see who was actually making the drug sales from the location in which he said he was parked at the preliminary hearing. Attorney Goldstein also successfully established that the officer had searched the corner property on the street without a search warrant. Although the officer tried to claim that he could legally search the property without a warrant because the property was abandoned, Attorney Goldstein used photographs of the house and K.H.’s lease for the property to show that the property was not abandoned and police had entered the house without a warrant. Finally, Attorney Goldstein introduced character evidence which showed the judge that K.H. had never been arrested before and had an excellent reputation in the community for being a peaceful, law-abiding citizen. After recognizing that K.H. had no prior record, had not been found in actual possession of any drugs, and that the abandoned house was not actually abandoned, the trial judge found that she had reasonable doubt as to whether K.H. was actually the person in the alley. The judge found K.H. Not Guilty of all charges despite the fact that police claimed to have seen him selling drugs to five separate people. 

Attorney Goldstein Quoted in Philly.com Articles on Indecent Assault and Impact of #MeToo Movement on Criminal Defense Strategies

In addition to winning cases in the courtroom, our attorneys are often asked for analysis of criminal defense issues by the media. For example, Attorney Goldstein was recently quoted in two separate articles in the Philadelphia Inquirer. 

In one article, Attorney Goldstein was asked to provide insight on how attorneys are responding to the #MeToo Movement in sexual assault cases. You can read the article here. 

In the other article, Attorney Goldstein was asked to comment on the potential charges a person could face for groping a stranger in public and whether the victim would face charges if he or she responded by punching the groper. You can read the article here. 

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

If you are under investigation or facing criminal charges in Pennsylvania or New Jersey, we can help. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers have successfully defended thousands of clients in state and federal courts throughout PA and NJ. We are experienced and understanding defense attorneys with the skill and ability to help you with your case, and we are not afraid to take a case to trial. We offer a free 15-minute criminal defense strategy session to each potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with a criminal defense attorney today.