Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog

Zak Goldstein 6/9/23 Zak Goldstein 6/9/23

Not Guilty: Attorney Goldstein Obtains Acquittal in Aggravated Assault of Child Case

Philadelphia criminal defense attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire, recently won a full acquittal in an aggravated assault of a child case. In Commonwealth v. S.B., prosecutors charged S.B. with aggravated assault of a child and endangering the welfare of a child because S.B. was unable to explain injuries that occurred to her three month old baby.

About two years ago, S.B. called 911 after noticing that her nearly three month old baby began to make unusual motions with his arm. An ambulance quickly arrived and took S.B. and the baby to the emergency room. At the emergency room, doctors quickly determined that the baby was suffering from seizures. Further testing determined that the baby was also suffering bilateral brain bleeds and had an injury to his neck. Fortunately, the doctors were able to stabilize the child, and the child began to make a successful recovery. Had the doctors not acted, quickly, however, the baby likely would have died from the brain bleeds.

Hospital personnel questioned S.B. about the cause of the injuries, and S.B. was unable to provide them with any explanation. She asked reasonable questions. For example, she asked whether hugging the baby too hard or leaving the baby in a swing for too long could have caused these issues. After telling S.B. that these injuries could not have been caused by accident, the doctors concluded that someone had committed child abuse. They called the Philadelphia Police Department, and a Special Victims Unit detective began an investigation. The detective interviewed S.B., the child’s father, S.B.’s grandmother, and the medical staff. Additionally, a child protection team doctor wrote a report concluding that the baby had been the victim of child abuse. S.B. was unable to provide any explanation as to what happened, and she told the police and doctors that she was the primary caregiver to the baby. She did mention that she had left the baby alone with the baby’s father on the night before the seizures began, but the police ignored that fact. Instead, they asked to search her phone after she told them that she had been texting with her mother about what could have caused the injuries and googling the various symptoms of shaken baby syndrome and SIDS. Notably, the father did not accompany S.B. and the baby to the hospital.

After the police confirmed that she had in fact conducted these Google searches, the police arrested S.B. Prosecutors promptly charged her with aggravated assault of a child and endangering the welfare of a child. They could not find the baby’s father to obtain an interview for a month, and he had a lengthy history of domestic violence. Nonetheless, they opted only to arrest S.B. Prosecutors maintained at all times that she must have intentionally injured the baby that she had rushed to the hospital.

S.B. quickly found herself facing $500,000 bail and the prospect of a 5-10 year mandatory minimum sentence should she be convicted of aggravated assault. Fortunately, she retained Attorney Goldstein. Attorney Goldstein thoroughly investigated the case and quickly became convinced that law enforcement had made an egregious error in charging S.B. Attorney Goldstein reviewed the discovery, interviewed family members, obtained medical records, and located records which showed the baby’s father’s violent history. Attorney Goldstein then had the case scheduled for trial before a Philadelphia judge.

Through cross-examination of the child protection team doctor, Attorney Goldstein established that the police had evidence of child abuse but no evidence that S.B. committed the abuse. Specifically, S.B. had no prior record, rushed the baby to the hospital as soon as she realized something was seriously wrong, seemed appropriately concerned, asked normal questions, and remained at the hospital until the baby was discharged. She voluntarily spoke with the doctors, nurses, and police detectives, and she provided the detectives with her phone without even requiring the detectives to get a search warrant. She maintained at all times that she did not know what happened, that she was the primary caregiver for the baby, and that she had left the house for about an hour shortly before the symptoms developed.

Attorney Goldstein also cross-examined the detective on his failure to investigate the father’s history of domestic violence and the lack of evidence showing that S.B. had done anything other than rush the baby to the hospital and try to Google the possible causes of symptoms. The Commonwealth objected, arguing that such evidence was not admissible. Anticipating this argument, Attorney Goldstein was prepared with the recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court case law on the issue and successfully convinced the trial judge that the evidence was admissible to show that someone else had committed the crime.

Finally, Attorney Goldstein used S.B.’s text messages to show that there was absolutely no consciousness of guilt on her part - she had googled the symptoms to try to get help, immediately contacted her mother and 911, and acted the same way that a concerned parent who did not in fact cause the injuries would have acted. Attorney Goldstein also presented evidence of S.B.’s good character in the community.

The trial judge immediately found S.B. not guilty of all charges. Instead of facing a mandatory minimum sentence of five to ten years’ incarceration, S.B. will have the charges expunged. Unfortunately, this case highlights the rush to judgment that police and healthcare professionals often engage in anytime a child presents for an appointment or at the emergency room with an injury. Accidents happen, illnesses sometimes present in atypical ways, and even if child abuse has occurred, the police do not always know who committed it. But in cases involving the potential abuse of children, the system is under a lot of pressure to make an arrest. This leads to innocent people like S.B. getting arrested, and this case serves as a cautionary tale as to why you should always consult with a lawyer before speaking with the police. Fortunately, the trial judge acquitted, the baby recovered well from the injuries, and S.B. will be able to return to her life.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Lawyers

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.

Zak Goldstein 6/7/23 Zak Goldstein 6/7/23

Federal Third Circuit Finds Felon in Possession of Firearm Laws Unconstitutional as Applied to Old, Non-Violent Offenses

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has decided the case of Range v. Attorney General. In Range, the Third Circuit held that the federal felon in possession of a firearm law, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), is unconstitutional as applied to a plaintiff whose only conviction was for a 30-year-old non-violent fraud offense. Under Range, prosecutors throughout the Third Circuit, which includes Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware, will now have significant difficulties in bringing prosecutions against defendants who are found with firearms which they would otherwise not be allowed to possess due to non-violent convictions. The case, however, leaves open the questions of exactly which convictions will still prohibit a person from possessing a firearm and whether a more recent non-violent offense could still trigger the prohibition on firearm possession by a felon.

The Facts of Range

In 1995, Range pleaded guilty in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas to one count of making a false statement to obtain food stamps. At the time, a violation of that statute was classified as a a misdemeanor of the first degree under Pennsylvania law. A misdemeanor of the first degree may be punished by up to five years in prison. Range had lied about his income on the food stamp application, and he received a sentence of probation. He also had to pay restitution.

Range’s conviction, however, prohibited him from possessing a firearm or ammunition. Under the federal law, §922(g), anyone with a felony conviction generally may not possess a firearm that has been transported in interstate commerce.

The federal definition of a felony, however, can be somewhat confusing. The federal statute defines a felony as any federal offense punishable by more than one year in prison regardless of the sentence that the defendant actually received. This means that a defendant who pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit securities fraud, which could have a five year maximum, would be prohibited from possessing a firearm even if the defendant received a probationary sentence or a prison sentence of one year or less.

The federal definition of “felony” also includes state court crimes. But for state court crimes which have been designated by the state as a misdemeanor, the law only prohibits firearm possession if the offense of conviction is punishable by more than two years.

Pennsylvania has three degrees of graded misdemeanors as well as various ungraded misdemeanors. Misdemeanors of the third degree are punishable by up to a year in prison, and misdemeanors of the second degree are punishable by up to two years in prison. First offense DUIs and drug possession charges are ungraded misdemeanors. For example, a first DUI has a maximum penalty of six months’ incarceration, and possession of a controlled substance has a maximum of one year in prison. Misdemeanors of the first degree, however, are punishable by up to five years in prison. Accordingly, misdemeanors of the first degree prohibit a person from possessing a firearm under federal law even if Pennsylvania law would still allow firearm ownership. This means that even some DUI offenses may trigger a permanent, lifetime bar on firearm possession under federal law because many second and third DUI offenses may be graded as misdemeanors of the first degree or worse. Likewise, a second offense possession of a controlled substance usually carries a maximum of three years in jail, so that offense also would trigger a lifetime ban on firearm possession.

In short, a conviction for any federal offense with a maximum penalty of more than one year or any state misdemeanor with a maximum of more than two years would trigger a lifetime ban on firearm possession under federal law. Prior to Range, this was true regardless of the nature of the offense or the sentence that the defendant received; the only thing that mattered was the maximum possible sentence.

Range, however, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania seeking a declaration that the federal statute violates the Second Amendment as applied to him. He argued that but for the statute, he would purchase a gun for self-defense or for hunting. And he argued that because his only conviction was for a thirty-year-old non-violent state court misdemeanor, the statute unconstitutionally violates his right to possess a firearm.

The Third Circuit’s Ruling

In a somewhat surprising ruling, the Third Circuit went en banc (meaning more than three judges heard the case) and overwhelmingly voted that the statute prohibiting firearm ownership for all federal felons did in fact violate Range’s Second Amendment rights. The Court’s analysis focused primarily on the United States Supreme Court’s recent ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen. There, the United States Supreme Court struck down New York’s prohibition on carrying a firearm outside of the home. The Court also provided an entirely new rubric for testing the constitutionality of firearms regulations. Bruen requires a court to focus on whether the Second Amendment applies to a person and his proposed conduct. If it does, then the government bears the burden of proof to “affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.”

Here, the Court found that Range is one of the people to whom the Second Amendment applies because he is a citizen of the United States. Therefore, the government had to try to justify the regulation prohibiting from possessing a firearm by pointing to similar laws existing around the time of the founding of the United States. The Court ultimately concluded that there were no similar laws which would have prohibited someone with an old, non-violent fraud offense from permanently possessing a firearm. Accordingly, the statute is unconstitutional as applied to Range, and it may not be applied to him or people like him. Unless the United States Supreme Court decides to review the case, Range may possess a firearm for hunting or self-defense.

The question remains as to how broadly the courts will read this opinion. For example, the Court did not find that felons convicted of violent crimes may still possess firearms. It also did not really define non-violent offenses as there are all sorts of crimes that could be considered violent or not depending on one’s definition. Finally, it did not clarify how old an offense should be before it no longer matters. Had Range’s conviction been more recent, for example, would the prohibition have been constitutional.

In the short term, there will be numerous challenges to both federal and state firearms regulations, and it appears that no regulation is safe. Exactly which crimes prohibit possession and for how long is now debatable. Laws prohibiting people under 21 or who have active protection from abuse orders against them from possessing a firearm may also be unconstitutional. A Texas federal appellate court found that the federal prohibition on possessing a firearm while being the subject of an active PFA order is unconstitutional, and other courts have found that states may not prohibit 18 - 20 year olds from carrying firearms. It remains to be seen whether background check laws and even straw purchase laws may be enforced by the police and prosecutors. Ultimately, these decisions will be decided by the courts, and many statutes may have to be revised by various legislatures. And while many laws may eventually be struck down, you should not assume that any given law is unconstitutional as violating a statute could still have enormous consequences. However, if you have been charged with illegal firearm possession, you should immediately speak with an attorney. There may be constitutional challenges to the statute under which the charges were filed.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Attorneys

Zak Goldstein 5/31/23 Zak Goldstein 5/31/23

PA Superior Court: Unprovoked Flight in High Crime Area Still Justifies Stop of Suspect

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Barnes, holding that unprovoked flight in a high crime area justifies the detention of the person fleeing even if the police do not make any other observations of criminal activity. This is true even if the police observe no other factors that could give rise to reasonable suspicion - unprovoked flight and a high crime area, with nothing more, is enough for the police to stop someone and potentially frisk them.

The Facts of Barnes

In Barnes, the police were traveling in a police car at an intersection in a high crime area. The police department considered the area to be so bad that they routinely had a police car simply park at that corner at all times in order to try to prevent crime. The officers were driving in the area when they observed a group of about five or six people on the northeast corner of 8th and Clearfield. The group began to scatter as the police approached, and each member began walking in a different direction.

The defendant began walking southbound towards the patrol car with at least one other male. One of the officers got out of the car and turned his flash light on. The defendant then ran. The officers chased him, and the defendant eventually tripped and fell. The officers caught him, saw that he had a fanny pack, and they started to frisk the fanny pack. They asked if he had a gun in it, and he said yes. They found a gun in the fanny pack. The defendant then said he was on probation and did not have a license to carry.

The Motion to Suppress

The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to suppress, finding that police stopped him without reasonable suspicion or probable cause because they observed nothing more than flight in a high crime area. The court reasoned that because the police had no specific information about the defendant, did not see any criminal activity, and were not responding to any kind of radio or 911 call, they had no reason to stop the defendant. Therefore, the court suppressed the gun, and the Commonwealth appealed.

The Superior Court Appeal

The Superior Court promptly reversed the suppression order. The court noted that the case law has long held that unprovoked flight from police in a high crime area justifies an investigative detention of the suspect. Therefore, the police were allowed to chase the defendant and try to figure out why he ran away from them for seemingly no reason. Mere presence in a high crime area alone does not justify a stop, but when that presence is coupled with unprovoked flight, the police may investigate. There is no requirement that the police see specific criminal activity or receive a 911 call directing them to stop the defendant.

As the defendant had fled for no reason and had a bag which could have contained a gun, the police were then justified in asking if the bag had a gun in it. The court ruled that the police had not actually arrested the defendant before finding the gun - they had just tried to stop him to figure out what was going on. Therefore, the Superior Court reversed the order granting the motion to suppress and remanded the case for trial. The defendant will now face trial on the firearms charges.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Zak Goldstein 5/29/23 Zak Goldstein 5/29/23

PA Superior Court: Concussion May Be Serious Bodily Injury Under Aggravated Assault Statute

The Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Santiago, holding that a concussion alone may meet the definition of serious bodily injury as required for an aggravated assault conviction. The defendant had been convicted of aggravated assault and appealed the conviction. He argued that a concussion alone did not amount to serious bodily injury. The Superior Court, however, disagreed. Medical testimony introduced at trial established that a concussion impairs the brain for a protracted period and could be indefinite in extreme circumstances. Therefore, the court affirmed the conviction.

The Facts of Commonwealth v. Santiago

In July 2019, police responded to a noise complaint. When officers arrived on the scene, they discovered an impromptu block party. Various partygoers insulted and threatened the officers, and the officers eventually decided to arrest one of them. That person fled, and the officers chased him to his apartment building.

Other people at the apartment building tried to help the defendant. Someone knocked an officer to the ground. When the officer stood back up and called for help, the defendant punched the officer in the face. The officer fell backwards down four steps and hit his head on the metal leg of a picnic table. He became disoriented and nearly lost consciousness. There was also some bleeding.

The officer was diagnosed with a concussion at the hospital and missed two weeks of work. He continued to suffer from migraines, visual impairment, and confusion for about a month. The Commonwealth charged the defendant with aggravated assault and related charges. A jury convicted him, and the trial court sentenced the defendant to an aggregate of seven to fourteen years’ incarceration. The defendant filed a timely appeal, raising the issue that one punch resulting in a minor concussion is insufficient to support a conviction for aggravated assault.

The Superior Court Appeal

The defendant appealed, arguing that punching an officer one time and causing only a minor concussion from which the officer recovered was not an aggravated assault as a felony of the first degree. First degree felony aggravated assault requires that a defendant either specifically attempt to cause serious bodily injury and fail to do so or that a defendant intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly under circumstances manifesting an extreme disregard to the value of human life actually cause serious bodily injury. Therefore, the issue in this case was whether the defendant actually caused serious bodily injury.

The defendant argued that the concussion in this case was not a serious bodily injury. Serious bodily injury is either, 1) harm creating a substantial risk of death, 2) harm creating serious, permanent disfigurement, or (3) harm causing protracted loss or impairment of a bodily member or organ. Here, the court found that the concussion fell within the third category. The officer’s treating physician testified that the concussion altered brain function and caused an impairment to brain function that could be protracted. In extreme cases, the potential effects of a concussion can be indefinite. Therefore, concussing someone during an assault may be sufficient to be deemed serious bodily injury and rise to the level of aggravated assault.

This case makes it easier for the Commonwealth to obtain a conviction for aggravated assault. Concussions obviously occur with some regularity, and most people recover without any major issues. Therefore, a concussion probably should not equate to serious bodily injury. But here, likely because the case involved a police officer as the victim, the court upheld the conviction and found that a concussion may be serious bodily injury even where the victim recovers quickly.