Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog

Zak Goldstein Zak Goldstein

PA Superior Court: Trial Court May Deny Expungement Petition During Statute of Limitations

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Lloyd, 2025 PA Super 93, affirming the denial of the defendant’s petitions to expunge two sets of charges stemming from alleged domestic violence incidents against his former girlfriend. The defendant sought expungement after the cases were dismissed for lack of prosecution when the complainant failed to appear for multiple preliminary hearing listings.

Procedural History

The Commonwealth charged the defendant at two docket numbers with Aggravated Assault and related offenses. The charges were dismissed a few months later after the complainant failed to appear on three separate occasions. Although the court granted the defendant limited access relief under 18 Pa.C.S. § 9122.2 in November 2022, the defendant filed expungement petitions about six months after the dismissal of the charges. The Commonwealth objected to the expungement of the charges. The Commonwealth cited an alleged pattern of domestic violence-related charges even though all of the charges had been dismissed. After a hearing, the motions judge in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas denied the petitions, and the defendant appealed.

Legal Standard

The Pennsylvania Superior Court reviews the denial of an expungement petition for an abuse of discretion. Where charges are terminated without a conviction or acquittal, courts must balance the petitioner’s right to be free from the reputational harm of maintaining arrest records against the Commonwealth’s interest in retaining them. A court must apply the five-factor test outlined in Commonwealth v. Wexler, 431 A.2d 877 (Pa. 1981). Those factors are:

  1. Strength of the Commonwealth’s case;

  2. Reasons for retaining the records;

  3. The petitioner’s age, criminal record, and employment history;

  4. Time elapsed since the arrest; and

  5. Specific adverse consequences suffered.

The Commonwealth bears the burden of justifying the retention of the records when the prosecution admits it cannot meet its burden at trial. However, per Commonwealth v. Drummond, 694 A.2d 1111 (Pa. Super. 1997), records may still be maintained until the statute of limitations expires if the evidence is not wholly insufficient.

Arguments on Appeal

The defendant argued that:

  • The Commonwealth failed to meet its burden because it presented only affidavits of probable cause, which constituted inadmissible hearsay.

  • The Commonwealth’s reasons for opposing expungement (potential Rule 404(b) use and pending statute of limitations) were too general.

  • His criminal record was dated, and he faced adverse employment consequences.

  • The short time since dismissal (six months) should not weigh against expungement.

The Commonwealth and the trial judge countered that:

  • The affidavits, describing serious physical injuries and identifying defendant, showed a non-frivolous case even though the complainant refused to testify.

  • The charges were part of a pattern of domestic violence.

  • The statute of limitations had not expired, allowing potential refiling.

  • The defendant had not proven specific adverse consequences.

Superior Court Holding

The Superior Court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion. In making its ruling, the Court emphasized the following:

  • Only six months had passed between dismissal and the expungement petitions.

  • The statute of limitations would not expire until 2027, supporting retention in case the complainant later cooperated. This is probably not true - it would be very difficult for the Commonwealth to reinstate charges given that the speedy trial rule likely continues to run even though the charges have been dismissed.

  • The defendant remained employed part-time and had not clearly demonstrated that the existence of the dismissed charges prevented full-time employment or caused other specific harm.

The Court concluded that the Commonwealth had provided sufficient justification to retain the arrest records and that the defendant had not shown a compelling right to expungement under the Wexler factors.

Practical Takeaway

Commonwealth v. Lloyd reinforces that even when charges are dismissed without a preliminary hearing, expungement is not automatic. Where the Commonwealth can show a plausible reason to retain records—such as the statute of limitations still running, evidence of serious injuries, and potential future cooperation by a complainant—courts may deny expungement even absent a conviction. Defense attorneys should develop a detailed record of specific adverse consequences when seeking expungement and be prepared to argue why retention of a dismissed case would be fundamentally unfair under the totality of the circumstances. Additionally, the defense probably should have argued that even if the statute of limitations had not expired, the speedy trial rule (Rule 600) likely would prevent the Commonwealth from reinstating the charges even if the Commonwealth decided to try to pursue the case again.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

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 and dismissals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, Violations of the Uniform Firearms Act, and First-Degree Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court, including the successful direct appeal of a first-degree murder conviction and the exoneration of a client who spent 33 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.  

Read More
Zak Goldstein Zak Goldstein

PA Supreme Court: Police May Lie To You During Interrogation

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Foster, re-affirming the rule that the police generally may lie to you during an interrogation and still use any statement they have obtained in court against you.

In Foster, the Court considered whether a detective’s misrepresentation that the defendant was “not a suspect,” despite having already obtained a search warrant for his DNA, rendered the defendant’s subsequent statements involuntary and inadmissible. The Court ultimately ruled in favor of the Commonwealth, holding that such a lie does not automatically invalidate a suspect’s otherwise voluntary statement under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Facts of Foster

The case arose from a 2019 incident in Pittsburgh, where the complainant (K.C.) visited a bar, consumed alcohol, and later woke up with injuries and memory gaps. This prompted her to seek a sexual assault exam. The lab analysis revealed the presence of male DNA, and a Pittsburgh Police Detective began an investigation.

The defendant, who worked at the bar, was identified as someone who had contact with K.C. that night. After learning of this, the detective applied for and obtained a search warrant for the defendant’s DNA. Before executing the warrant, the police asked the defendant to come to the police station for an interview. The defendant voluntarily did so.

During the interview, the detective told the defendant twice that he was "not a suspect" and that he was just one of many people being interviewed. The detective did not advise the defendant of his Miranda rights because the defendant was not in custody. The interview remained cordial and non-confrontational. The defendant denied any sexual contact and voluntarily provided a DNA sample even after being told (late in the interview) that the detective had obtained a search warrant before he had arrived. Obviously, none of this was a great idea - the defendant did not have to give a false statement to the police or voluntarily surrender his DNA until the police obtained and executed a search warrant.

When the defendant’s DNA matched the DNA found in the rape kit, he was arrested and charged with rape of an unconscious person and sexual assault. He moved to suppress his statements, arguing they were involuntary because the detective lied about the nature of the encounter. He alleged that because the detective lied when telling him he was not a suspect, he was tricked into giving the statement and his DNA.

Suppression Court Grants Motion

The trial court granted the suppression motion, finding that the detective’s false statement deprived the defendant of the ability to make a “free and unconstrained choice” to speak. The court emphasized that the detective had already considered the defendant a suspect. This fact was reflected in the affidavit of probable cause used to obtain the DNA warrant. Although the court did not find that the detective acted in bad faith, it concluded that the false statement undermined the voluntariness of the statement.

Superior Court Reverses

The Commonwealth appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. On appeal, the Superior Court reversed. Applying a totality-of-the-circumstances test, the panel noted that the defendant came to the police station voluntarily, was not restrained, used his cell phone freely, and was not subjected to coercive tactics. The interview was short and amicable. The court concluded that while the detective’s statement was misleading, it did not render Foster’s statement involuntary.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Affirms: Misleading a Suspect About Their Status Does Not Render a Statement Involuntary Per Se

In a majority opinion by Justice McCaffery, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court. The Court reiterated that under both federal and state precedent, police deception does not automatically invalidate a suspect’s statement. The key inquiry remains whether the defendant’s will was overborne under the totality of the circumstances.

The Court rejected the idea that telling someone they are not a suspect, even when they are, automatically makes their statements inadmissible. The defendant was not in custody, the interview was non-coercive, and he voluntarily submitted to questioning and DNA testing. The Court also declined to adopt a per se rule automatically barring such misrepresentations. The police are allowed to lie to a suspect during an interrogation.

Importantly, while the Court acknowledged arguments from the defendant and amicus PACDL about the dangers of deceptive interrogation practices—including the risk of false confessions—it found that the defendant waived any broader claim under Article I, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution by failing to preserve the argument below.

What This Means for Criminal Defendants

This case underscores the fact that Pennsylvania courts continue to tolerate certain forms of police deception during voluntary interviews. Unless a suspect is formally in custody or subjected to inherently coercive tactics, courts are unlikely to suppress statements based solely on misleading remarks about their status.

However, the decision also offers a roadmap for defense attorneys challenging similar statements: had the defendant preserved his state constitutional claim under Article I, Section 9, the Court may have considered drawing a stricter line. Future cases may test whether Pennsylvania’s Constitution should provide broader protections than the Fifth Amendment.

Key Takeaway

If you are contacted by police and told you're “not a suspect,” that statement may not shield you from criminal charges. Anything you say can still be used against you. Always consult with an attorney before agreeing to any interview or providing evidence if there is any chance that you could be a suspect in the crime.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense

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 and dismissals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, Violations of the Uniform Firearms Act, and First-Degree Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court, including the successful direct appeal of a first-degree murder conviction and the exoneration of a client who spent 33 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.  

Read More
Zak Goldstein Zak Goldstein

Will a Gun Charge Ruin My Record? Not If You Fight It.

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

Being charged with a gun crime in Pennsylvania doesn’t automatically mean your life is over. It doesn’t necessarily mean you’re going to prison. And it certainly doesn’t mean you’ll never be able to move forward.

Yes, gun charges are serious. But they’re also often defensible. And with the right legal strategy, you may be able to avoid a conviction, protect your record, and keep your future on track.

Here’s what you need to know—and why the smartest thing you can do right now is get a lawyer who knows how to fight.

1. You Are Not Convicted Just Because You Were Charged

A gun arrest is not the same as a conviction. The police may have overreached. The stop may have been illegal. The gun may not have been yours.

Until and unless the Commonwealth proves its case in court beyond a reasonable doubt, you still have every opportunity to win—through suppression motions, trial, or negotiation.

2. There Are Real Paths to Avoid a Record

Depending on your background and the facts of your case, your lawyer may be able to:

  • Get the charges dropped

  • Win a motion to suppress the firearm due to an illegal search

  • Negotiate for a dismissal or diversion (like ARD or AFD in some cases)

  • Fight the case at trial and get an acquittal

And if you beat the case, you may be eligible to expunge the record entirely.

3. Even a Conviction Isn’t Always the End

Let’s say things don’t go perfectly, and a conviction happens. That still doesn’t mean it’s over. You may still be able to:

  • Appeal the case if your rights were violated

  • File for a pardon in the future, especially if this is a first offense

  • Clear your record later through post-conviction litigation

We’ve helped clients get their rights back years after a conviction—but the best time to fight is now.

4. Don’t Plead Guilty Without Exploring Your Options

Prosecutors may try to scare you into a guilty plea. Don’t take the bait. There is often far more room to fight than people realize:

  • Was the stop or search unconstitutional?

  • Was the gun really yours?

  • Did the officers follow the rules?

  • Do the elements of the charge even apply to your situation?

You won’t know unless an experienced attorney thoroughly reviews the case.

5. You Only Get One Record—Protect It

Your criminal record can affect:

  • Job opportunities

  • Professional licenses

  • Housing and immigration status

  • Future police encounters

But a smart, strategic defense can often prevent it from getting on your record in the first place.

Facing gun charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense

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 and dismissals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, Violations of the Uniform Firearms Act, and First-Degree Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court, including the successful direct appeal of a first-degree murder conviction and the exoneration of a client who spent 33 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.  

Read More
Zak Goldstein Zak Goldstein

What’s the Difference Between VUFA 6106, 6108, and 6105 in Pennsylvania?

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

If you’ve been charged with a gun offense in Philadelphia, you may have seen multiple statutes listed on your charging documents. They could include VUFA § 6106, § 6108, and § 6105. These numbers refer to different sections of Pennsylvania’s Uniform Firearms Act, and they carry very different consequences.

Understanding the difference between them is critical to defending your case and protecting your record.

1. 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106 – Carrying a Firearm Without a License
This is the most commonly charged gun offense in Pennsylvania. It makes it a felony to carry a concealed firearm without a valid license outside your home or fixed place of business. It applies to carrying a firearm in a car without a license.

Key facts:
- Charged when someone allegedly possesses a concealed weapon in public or in a car without a license to carry.
- Applies even if the person has no prior record.
- Felony of the third degree unless the person is otherwise eligible to carry a firearm (meaning they do not have any prior record and are not charge with any other crimes). In Philadelphia, it is almost always a felony of the third degree because the defendant will typically be charged with VUFA § 6108 at the same time.

Example: Police find a gun in your waistband during a stop-and-frisk, and you do not have a valid concealed carry license.

2. 18 Pa.C.S. § 6108 – Carrying a Firearm on the Streets of Philadelphia
This statute applies only within the City of Philadelphia. It prohibits carrying a firearm in public without a license. It does not matter if the gun is concealed. It makes open carry without a license illegal in Philadelphia even though open carry is legal in the rest of the state.

Key facts:
- Often charged in addition to VUFA 6106, thereby making § 6106 a felony instead of a misdemeanor.
- Covers walking with a gun on your person in Philly.
- Misdemeanor of the first degree.

Example: Police stop you while walking in North Philadelphia and recover a gun from your jacket. You don’t have a license to carry.

3. 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105 – Persons Not to Possess Firearms
This is the most serious of the three. § 6105 makes it a felony of the first or second degree (depending on whether the gun is physically on you) for certain individuals to possess firearms at all. It is based on prior convictions or legal disqualifications. Most prior felony convictions will cause § 6105 to be graded as a felony, but juvenile adjudications and active PFA orders will typically make it a misdemeanor.

Who’s covered by 6105?
- People with certain felony or misdemeanor convictions
- People subject to active protection from abuse (PFA) orders
- Individuals with certain mental health commitments or juvenile adjudications

Example: You have a felony record and are found in possession of a firearm. You may may be charged with VUFA § 6105 as a felony.

4. Why Are These Charges Often Filed Together?
In Philadelphia, prosecutors frequently charge multiple gun statutes at once even for a single firearm. You might see:
- § 6106 (carrying without a license)
- § 6108 (carrying in public in Philadelphia)
- § 6105 (if you’re legally prohibited)

This approach gives the Commonwealth backup charges if the primary one falls apart at trial or at a suppression hearing.

5. Do These Charges Merge at Sentencing?
Usually, VUFA 6105, 6106, and 6108 do not merge at sentencing because they involve distinct elements. That means a person could theoretically receive consecutive sentences even though all three charges stem from the same conduct and from possession of only one gun.

6. How Do We Defend These Charges?
Defense strategies depend on the facts and the statute:

For 6106 and 6108, we often challenge:
- The legality of the stop or search
- Constructive possession
- Intent or knowledge
- Whether any of the exceptions apply (working as a security guard, hunting, travel to a shooting range, license to carry recently revoked or notice not properly given, etc.)

For 6105, we may:
- Challenge the underlying disqualifying conviction
- Litigate whether the statute applies based on out-of-state priors
- Seek constitutional defenses where appropriate (such as whether the application of the statute is constitutional)
- Many of the same defenses that apply to § 6106 and § 6108 may apply to a § 6105 charge

Facing 6106, 6108, or 6105 Charges? You Need a Targeted Defense.
Every gun statute in Pennsylvania carries different penalties, defenses, and evidentiary issues. At Goldstein Mehta LLC, we understand the nuances of each one—and we’ve beaten them in court through motions to suppress, pretrial litigation, and trial advocacy.

If you’ve been charged with any firearm offense in Philadelphia, call us today for a free consultation. We’ll break down the charges, explore your options, and fight to protect your freedom and your record. Call 267-225-245 for a free criminal defense strategy session and to find out how we can help.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Lawyers in the Courtroom

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 and dismissals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, Violations of the Uniform Firearms Act, and First-Degree Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court, including the successful direct appeal of a first-degree murder conviction and the exoneration of a client who spent 33 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.  

Read More