Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog
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.
Defense Attorney Zak Goldstein Selected to 2018 PA Super Lawyers Rising Stars
Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esq.
Criminal Defense Attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esq. Selected to 2018 PA Super Lawyers Rising Stars
Zak T. Goldstein, Esq., Criminal Defense Attorney at Goldstein Mehta LLC, has been named to the 2018 Pennsylvania Rising Stars list. This is an exclusive list, recognizing no more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state.
Super Lawyers, part of Thomson Reuters, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process, which results in a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys.
The Super Lawyers and Rising Stars lists are published nationwide in Super Lawyers Magazines and in leading city and regional magazines and newspapers across the country. Super Lawyers Magazines also feature editorial profiles of attorneys who embody excellence in their practice of law. For more information about Super Lawyers, go to SuperLawyers.com.
Goldstein Mehta LLC Defense Attorneys Obtain Successful Outcomes in Robbery, PWID, Gun, and Assault Cases
Criminal defense attorneys Demetra Mehta and Zak Goldstein continue to obtain successful results in and out of the courtroom. In the last few months, our defense attorneys have won cases involving drug charges, gun charges, assault allegations, and juvenile robbery charges. If you are facing criminal charges, call 267-225-2545 for a complimentary criminal defense strategy session with one of our award-winning defense attorneys. Some examples of our recent not guilty verdicts and successful motions to suppress include:
Commonwealth v. T.C. - Motion to Suppress Granted in Drug Delivery Case
Criminal Lawyer Demetra Mehta
Attorney Mehta focuses on getting the best results for her clients. In the case of Commonwealth v. T.C., she successfully moved for the suppression of 13 grams of crack cocaine. Attorney Mehta also beat the accompanying DUI charge. In this case, the government alleged Attorney Mehta's client was driving while intoxicated. The arresting police officer claimed that he pulled T.C. over because the head lights of T.C.'s vehicle were not on at night. But Attorney Mehta knew better. She recognized that this was a late-model car, and she quickly obtained proof that the car's headlights actually turn on automatically at night. Through skillful cross-examination, she was able to demonstrate this key fact to the trial judge during the motion to suppress. This led to not only the eventual suppression of the large quantity of drugs in the car but also all observations of her client, meaning the government could not proceed on the DUI charges, either. With the motion to suppress granted, prosecutors were forced to withdraw all charges. T.C. now faces no criminal record from this arrest!
Commonwealth v. G.R. – Not Guilty in Self-Defense Assault Case
G.R., the assistant manager of a local market, was charged with Simple Assault in Philadelphia for allegedly getting into a fight with a co-worker at work. Prosecutors alleged that G.R. punched a co-worker in the throat, fracturing his larynx, after the co-worker engaged in a verbal altercation with G.R. relating to work responsibilities. Although a broken bone can often lead to Aggravated Assault charges, prosecutors moved only to prosecute G.R. in the Philadelphia Municipal Court on the Simple Assault charge. Despite the fact that G.R. was charged only with misdemeanors, the stakes were high for G.R. because G.R. stood to lose his job in the event of a conviction relating to an assault of someone at work.
Attorney Goldstein defended G.R. and obtained a full acquittal in a trial before the Municipal Court Judge. Attorney Goldstein established that G.R. acted in self-defense by cross-examining the complainant on the size difference between the two men, the discrepancies, contradictions, and omissions in the complainant’s statement, and the complainant’s lack of medical records to show that he had actually sustained the injuries that he claimed.
Attorney Goldstein established that the complainant, a much bigger man, got in G.R.’s face, pushed him repeatedly, and made a movement consistent with lining up to throw a punch before G.R. ever responded with force. A background check of the complainant also revealed that he had prior convictions for conspiracy to commit homicide as a juvenile and simple assault as an adult. Mr. Goldstein successfully moved for the admission of those convictions into evidence in order to show that the complainant was actually the initial aggressor. Mr. Goldstein then called G.R. to the stand to testify that he had acted in self-defense and believed that the complainant was about to throw a punch. The judge rejected the complainant’s inconsistent testimony and promptly acquitted G.R. on self-defense grounds.
Commonwealth v. J.L. – Motion to Suppress Granted in Case Involving Drugs, Guns, and Cash
Our criminal defense lawyers recently won a motion to suppress of physical evidence in a case involving drug charges and gun charges in the Philadelphia Municipal Court. J.L. was pulled over by police one night as the passenger in a vehicle. Police claimed that the vehicle smelled like marijuana and that J.L. made furtive movements as they approached the car. Police also claimed that J.L. seemed very nervous and lacked identification when the police spoke with him.
Police decided to remove him from the car and frisk him based on these observations. The officer claimed to feel a pill bottle. Believing that the pill bottle would likely contain contraband, the officer then went into J.L.’s pockets, removed the pill bottle, and found crack cocaine in the bottle. The officer also claimed that J.L. had a large amount of cash in his pocket. Officers then searched the rest of the car and found more drugs and a gun in the trunk.
Prosecutors initially charged J.L. and the driver of the car with possession both of the drugs allegedly found in J.L.'s pocket as well as the larger quantity of drugs and guns in the trunk. Prosecutors listed the case for a preliminary hearing on the felony charges, and J.L. retained the criminal defense attorneys of Goldstein Mehta LLC for the preliminary hearing. Our attorneys were able to convince the prosecutor that they could not prove that J.L. constructively possessed the items in the trunk, including the larger quantity of drugs and the gun, because J.L. did not own the car and had never been seen accessing the trunk. Prosecutors agreed, withdrew the felony charges, and remanded the case to the Philadelphia Municipal Court only on the charges of possessing the crack cocaine in the pill bottle.
When the case was listed for trial, Attorney Goldstein moved to suppress the crack cocaine. In general, when police pull a car over in Pennsylvania, they may remove a passenger from the vehicle without any level of reasonable suspicion. However, in order to conduct a Terry frisk of the occupant of a car, the police must have reasonable suspicion both that the suspect is engaged in criminal activity and that the suspect is likely to be armed and dangerous. This means that police must be able to provide an articulable belief, consisting of real reasons, for why the officer believed that criminal activity was afoot and that the defendant was likely to have a weapon.
Here, the officer testified that he believed the defendant was likely concealing weapons or contraband in the car due to his furtive movements, nervousness, lack of identification, and the odor of marijuana in the car. He therefore decided to conduct a frisk. The officer failed to realize, however, that a Terry frisk is limited only to a cursory pat down for weapons. When an officer feels something that is plainly contraband during a frisk, the officer may then conduct a full search and remove the object for further inspection even when the officer does not believe the object is a weapon. But the officer must be immediately able to tell that the item in question is contraband. The officer cannot conduct a full search of a defendant’s pockets and the containers therein solely because the officer feels some kind of object and doesn’t know what it is or may contain.
After the officer testified that he could immediately tell that the item in question was a pill bottle, Attorney Goldstein provided the Court with Pennsylvania Supreme Court case law in which the Court held that a pill bottle cannot automatically be considered contraband. In most cases, it is perfectly legal to possess a pill bottle, and most pill bottles are not used to transport contraband. Accordingly, it is not immediately apparent that a pill bottle contains contraband. Based on this Supreme Court case, Attorney Goldstein successfully argued that the officer exceeded the scope of a lawful Terry frisk and that the pills should be suppressed. The judge agreed and granted the motion. The Commonwealth elected not to appeal and withdrew the charges.
Commonwealth v. W.D. – ARD Obtained in Possession with the Intent to Deliver Marijuana Case
W.D. was charged with selling a significant amount of marijuana from a car. Philadelphia Police conducted a narcotics surveillance targeting a block known for high drug activity. During the course of that surveillance, they were able to successfully have a confidential informant purchase drugs in a house on that block. Based on those controlled buys, police obtained a search warrant for the house and returned to execute the warrant. While they were preparing to execute the warrant, police allegedly observed W.D. selling marijuana to dozens of buyers from a car parked up the block. When police went to execute the search warrant, they also searched W.D. and the car in which he was sitting and found a quantity of marijuana and a large amount of money. Accordingly, police charged W.D. with Possession with the Intent to Deliver.
Fortunately, W.D. had no prior criminal record and was enrolled in college. Our defense attorneys worked with W.D. to put together a strong application for ARD on his behalf. We obtained proof of employment, college enrollment, and character letters from family members and friends. Using this mitigation packet, we were able to convince prosecutors to offer entry into the ARD program for the felony Possession with the Intent to Deliver charges. Prosecutors almost never offer ARD for PWID, but in this case, W.D. will have to complete a short period of probation, community service, and pay a small fine. Once those requirements have been completed, the charges will be dismissed and W.D. can have the entire case expunged with no admission or finding of guilt.
In Re: J.G. – Not Guilty Verdict Obtained in Juvenile Robbery Case
Criminal Defense Attorney Zak Goldstein
Attorney Goldstein successfully obtained a full acquittal in a juvenile delinquency Robbery case. In this case, J.G. was charged with strong-arm robbery and related theft charges for allegedly trying to steal the complainant’s cell phone. Prosecutors claimed that J.G. and a group of other juveniles had surrounded the complainant, held him down, and gone into his pockets, taking cash and trying to take a cell phone.
J.G. insisted on his innocence and our defense lawyers took the case to trial in Philadelphia Family Court. By cross-examining the arresting officer on the inconsistencies between the description of the robbers given by the complainant and the clothing that J.G. was actually wearing when arrested, and pointing out that J.G. had neither the complainant’s cell phone or money when arrested, Attorney Goldstein successfully convinced the Family Court judge that police had arrested the wrong person. Accordingly, the judge found J.G. Not Guilty of Robbery and all other charges. J.G. will continue to have no criminal record and may have all of the charges expunged.
FACING CRIMINAL CHARGES OR CONSIDERING AN APPEAL? WE CAN HELP.
If you are facing criminal charges or deciding whether to appeal a conviction or sentencing, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients in jurisdictions throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We can also provide advice on the merits of pursuing an appeal or post-conviction relief act petition. We offer a free 15-minute criminal defense strategy session to each potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding criminal defense attorney today.
Attorney Goldstein Selected to List of Three Best Rated Criminal Defense Lawyers in Philadelphia, PA
Attorney Goldstein was recently selected by Three Best Rated to their list of the Three Best Rated Criminal Defense Lawyers in Philadelphia, PA.
From the website:
Three Best Rated® was created with a simple goal to find you the top 3 local businesses, professionals, restaurants and health care providers in your city. We display only businesses that are verified by our employees since customers deserve only the best.
That's not all... Businesses do not pay us to list them ever. You do not pay us for the listing any time. We believe that local businesses provide better and personal services locally. Local businesses know your city better since they live there too. Our policy is free to list because if you can pay to list, then is it really the best business?