Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog

Zak Goldstein 7/25/25 Zak Goldstein 7/25/25

Philadelphia Gun Charges Dismissed – Motion to Quash Granted

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire of Goldstein Mehta LLC recently won a major victory for one of his clients in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. Attorney Zak T. Goldstein successfully argued a Motion to Quash (Habeas Corpus Petition) in a firearms case, resulting in the complete dismissal of all charges prior to trial. This case highlights why an aggressive and experienced Philadelphia criminal defense lawyer can make the difference when facing VUFA (Violation of Uniform Firearms Act) charges.

Background: Gun Charges After a Medical Emergency

The client, D.F., was charged with two serious offenses:

18 Pa.C.S. § 6106 – Firearms Not to be Carried Without a License (F3)
18 Pa.C.S. § 6108 – Carrying Firearms on Public Streets in Philadelphia (M1)

The case began when D.F., a security guard, experienced a medical emergency while at work. He was transported to Einstein Hospital by ambulance. Hospital security later discovered a backpack near him that contained a firearm. The Philadelphia Police learned that he did not have a license to carry a firearm and charged him with these offenses.

Importantly, there was no evidence that D.F. had carried the gun on a public street, in a vehicle, or that he intentionally brought the firearm to the hospital. Instead, the only evidence was that he had been transported to the hospital from work and that a gun was found in the bag. The Municipal Court nonetheless held the case for trial after a preliminary hearing.

Defense Strategy: Challenging Weak Gun Cases at the Preliminary Hearing Stage

Attorney Goldstein filed a Motion to Quash (Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus) arguing that the case should be dismissed because:

Lawful possession at work – The Commonwealth’s own evidence established that D.F. was employed as a security guard and had been picked up at work during a medical emergency. Pennsylvania law allows a security guard to have a firearm at a fixed place of employment without a license to carry. It is recommended, however, that the guard obtain an Act 235 license or license to carry before doing so, but that is not a requirement of the statute.
No voluntary act or criminal intent – D.F. did not choose to transport the firearm; instead, he was taken to the hospital involuntarily by ambulance. There was no evidence of a voluntary act or intent required to sustain a prosecution under §§ 6106 or 6108.
Reliance on hearsay – The Commonwealth relied heavily on hearsay statements from a hospital security guard and D.F.’s own statement without offering non-hearsay evidence of possession. Under Commonwealth v. McClelland and Commonwealth v. Harris, a prima facie case cannot be made out solely with hearsay.

The Court’s Ruling: Charges Dismissed

The judge agreed with Attorney Goldstein’s arguments and granted the motion to quash, dismissing all charges. This ruling means that D.F. will not face trial for these unfounded gun charges.

Why Early Defense Matters in Philadelphia Gun Cases

This case underscores the importance of having an experienced Philadelphia gun charge attorney as early as possible. Motions to Quash and preliminary hearings are critical opportunities to challenge weak evidence and avoid the risks of a jury trial.

At Goldstein Mehta LLC, we have a proven track record of winning motions to suppress, motions to quash, and trials in Philadelphia gun and firearms cases. Our lawyers know the law and fight aggressively to protect our clients’ rights.

Charged With a Gun Offense in Philadelphia?

If you are facing VUFA charges, 6106/6108 charges, or any other gun-related offense in Philadelphia, call the experienced Philadelphia criminal defense attorneys at Goldstein Mehta LLC at (267) 225-2545. We offer a free criminal defense strategy session and will fight to protect your freedom.

Zak Goldstein 7/24/25 Zak Goldstein 7/24/25

PA Supreme Court: Vehicle Registration Alone Does Not Defeat Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Anderson, holding that a driver may have a reasonable expectation of privacy even where they are pulled over driving a car belonging to someone else. The mere fact that the car is registered to or belongs to another person does not mean that the Commonwealth automatically wins a motion to suppress for lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy. Instead, the Commonwealth would have to introduce additional evidence to show that the driver did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle in under to win on this basis.

The Facts of the Case

The case arose after the defendant was stopped by Chester police in Delaware County, PA for several Vehicle Code violations. During the stop, officers discovered a firearm in the vehicle’s center console and marijuana in the passenger area. The defendant was ultimately charged with various offenses including carrying a firearm without a license (VUFA § 6106). He moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the police violated his constitutional rights when they stopped him and searched the car.

The Commonwealth argued that because the car was registered to the defendant’s aunt rather than the defendant, he lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in it and thus could not challenge the search. The trial court agreed, as did the Superior Court, holding that registration to another person alone was enough to shift the burden to the defendant to prove he had lawful possession or permission to drive the car. The defendant appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court granted review.

The Supreme Court Appeal

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court disagreed. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Dougherty clarified that under Commonwealth v. Enimpah, the Commonwealth bears the initial burden to produce evidence that negates a reasonable expectation of privacy before a defendant must respond. The Court found that the mere fact a vehicle is registered to someone else does not, without more, establish that the driver lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy. Lawful possession and control—regardless of registration—can give rise to protected privacy interests under both the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

The Court emphasized that there are many plausible and lawful scenarios under which a person may be driving a vehicle registered to someone else. Therefore, registration alone is insufficient to meet the Commonwealth’s burden of production in terms of disproving reasonable expectation of privacy. The Court declined to address whether other facts in the case might satisfy the burden under a totality of the circumstances analysis and remanded the case for further proceedings.

This ruling strengthens protections for drivers in Pennsylvania, reinforcing that the Commonwealth must do more than cite vehicle registration records to justify a warrantless search. Defendants charged with possessory offenses retain automatic standing to challenge searches and seizures, and they are not required to affirmatively prove privacy interests unless and until the Commonwealth meets its initial evidentiary burden of disproving the reasonable expectation of privacy.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?

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.

Zak Goldstein 7/16/25 Zak Goldstein 7/16/25

Attorney Goldstein Wins New Trial in Murder Case Due to Improper Ruling on Calling Character Witnesses

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein — Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire of Goldstein Mehta LLC recently won a new trial for a client convicted of third-degree murder and aggravated assault in Commonwealth v. V.G. In a decision issued on July 16, 2025, the Pennsylvania Superior Court agreed that the trial court violated the client’s constitutional right to present a defense when it prohibited him from calling character witnesses at his retrial for a 2017 shooting in Lehigh County. The Superior Court vacated the judgment of sentence and remanded the case for a new trial, finding that the error was not harmless because the defendant’s credibility was central to the defense and character evidence could have created a reasonable doubt for the jury.

The Evidence in V.G.

The case arose out of a New Year’s Eve party held on December 31, 2017, at a private residence in Allentown. The Commonwealth alleged that the defendant attended the party after receiving an invitation through social media. At some point after midnight, another attendee, the decedent, who was heavily intoxicated, announced to his friend that he was going to take someone’s phone. He then grabbed the defendant’s phone for no reason. The two did not know each other, and the defendant ultimately shot the decedent twice. According to the defendant’s prior testimony from a previous trial which was also overturned, he acted in self-defense after the much larger decedent took his phone, cursed at him, threatened him, and tried to punch him. The defendant then shot a second individual, the decedent’s friend, who the defendant claimed was approaching in a threatening manner with one hand concealed around his waistband as the decedent assaulted him. The surviving complainant was struck three times but survived.

The defendant was eventually charged with the first-degree murder of the decedent and attempted murder on the surviving complainant. At a first trial, he was convicted of first-degree murder and other charges. That conviction was reversed on appeal after the trial court refused to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter based on imperfect self-defense. The Superior Court remanded the case for a second trial, which took place in 2023.

The Trial Court’s Ruling on Character Witnesses

Prior to the second trial, the defense indicated that it planned to call character witnesses who would have testified that the defendant, who had no criminal record at the time of the shooting, had a reputation in the community for being a peaceful and non-violent person. These traits were directly relevant to the homicide and aggravated assault charges because Pennsylvania law has long recognized that character evidence may be enough by itself to raise a reasonable doubt and require an acquittal.

The trial judge, however, refused to allow the defense to present character evidence. The trial court relied on a case called Commonwealth v. Kim, which is a diminished capacity case, and concluded that because the defendant admitted to the shootings, character evidence was irrelevant—even though the defendant’s defense at trial was that he acted in self-defense and, at most, committed voluntary manslaughter. Despite defense counsel’s repeated efforts to clarify that the defense was not one of diminished capacity, the trial court barred all character testimony.

PA Superior Court: The Defense Should Have Been Allowed to Call Character Witnesses

The defendant appealed, and Attorney Goldstein successfully convinced the Superior Court to reverse the conviction on appeal. Attorney Goldstein argued that the trial court erred in precluding the character evidence and that the error was not harmless. The Superior Court agreed. The panel held that the trial court misapplied Commonwealth v. Kim and improperly excluded the defendant’s peaceful character evidence. The Court emphasized that:

[The defendant] did not argue a diminished capacity defense. Rather, he argued that he acted in self-defense, committed at most voluntary manslaughter, and did not act with the mens rea necessary for attempted murder, murder, or aggravated assault. Therefore, Kim is inapplicable to the present case.

The Court reaffirmed that defendants are permitted to offer evidence of a reputation for peacefulness in violent crime cases and that such evidence is “substantive” and “may, in and of itself, create a reasonable doubt.” Because the defendant’s credibility was essential to the outcome of the trial—he testified to acting in self-defense while the complainant claimed the shooting was unjustified—the exclusion of this evidence could not be deemed harmless.

The Court concluded:

The character witnesses would have strengthened the defendant’s credibility, and the jury may have been more likely to credit his theory that he acted in self-defense.

The Superior Court vacated the judgment of sentence and remanded the case for a new trial at which the defendant will be able to call character witnesses.

The Importance of Character Evidence in Criminal Trials

This case highlights the critical role that character evidence can play in a Pennsylvania criminal trial. In cases involving violent crimes such as homicide and aggravated assault, the law allows defendants to introduce testimony from community members attesting to the defendant’s reputation for being peaceful, non-violent, or law-abiding. This evidence can be powerful when credibility is at issue, especially in self-defense cases where the only witnesses are the defendant and the alleged victim(s) or complainants.

The Court’s decision reinforces the principle that even when a defendant concedes involvement in a physical confrontation, they are still entitled to present a full defense, including character testimony, when disputing malice, intent, or justification. It also highlights the important of making a good record for appeal. Trial counsel did not leave any doubt that the defendant both intended to call character witnesses and had character witnesses available to testify both at a pre-trial hearing and at trial, thereby making sure that the appellate court could not find the claim undeveloped or waived for appeal.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?

Zak Goldstein 7/2/25 Zak Goldstein 7/2/25

Pennsylvania Superior Court Rejects “Place of Abode” Defense in Gun Case Where Defendant Sometimes Stayed Overnight at Girlfriend’s House and Had Keys

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Martin, 2025 PA Super 130, narrowing the “place of abode” defense for purposes of VUFA § 6106 and affirming the defendant’s conviction for carrying a concealed firearm without a license.

The Facts of Martin

The defendant was convicted in a bench trial in Allegheny County of a number of serious offenses, including attempted murder, aggravated assault, receiving stolen property, and several firearms offenses. He appealed, and the appeal focused on whether the Commonwealth proved that he carried a firearm without a license in violation of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106 (VUFA 6106).

The charges arose out of an incident involving the defendant’s girlfriend. The defendant and his girlfriend had been in a relationship for years. He normally lived in a different home with his daughter and fiancée, but he would often stay at the girlfriend’s house. He had a set of keys to the house.

On the day of the shooting, the defendant went to the girlfriend’s home after she ignored his calls. They began to argue, and the argument became physical. According to the girlfriend, the defendant pulled a gun from his waistband and shot her. The defendant testified that the girlfriend was intoxicated, threatened to harm herself, and accidentally shot herself during a struggle. After the shooting, the defendant hid the gun in a trash can outside.

The trial court rejected the defendant’s version of events and found him guilty. The court sentenced him to 10.5 - 21 years’ incarceration. That sentence included a three to six year consecutive sentence for carrying a concealed firearm without a license.

The Issue on Appeal

On appeal, the defendant’s main argument was that he could not be convicted of violating § 6106 because he was carrying the firearm only inside his “place of abode.” Pennsylvania law potentially makes it a felony to carry a concealed firearm without a license, but the statute contains a number of exceptions. One important exception is that the statute does not criminalize carrying a concealed firearm in a person’s own place of abode or fixed place of business.

Accordingly, the defendant argued that he was in his place of abode because he frequently stayed at the girlfriend’s house, had a set of keys, and was even considering moving in. He argued that this made her residence one of his “places of abode,” even if his primary residence was elsewhere.

The Superior Court’s Decision

The Superior Court rejected this argument and affirmed the conviction. The Court explained that the “place of abode” exception is interpreted narrowly under Pennsylvania law. It generally requires that the defendant actually live at the property either permanently or at least temporarily at the time of the incident.

Here, the Court pointed out:

The girlfriend testified that only she and her two children lived at the house.
The defendant himself admitted in his testimony that he lived at the other house and only sometimes stayed over with the girlfriend
On the day of the shooting, the defendant drove to the girlfriend’s house from the other neighborhood after not being able to reach her “for a few days.”
When the girlfriend demanded the defendant leave after the altercation, she told him to “get the fuck out of my house,” highlighting that it was not his home.

As a result, the Court found that the defendant was not residing at the girlfriend’s house either permanently or temporarily at the time of the shooting, so he could not rely on the “place of abode” exception.

The Court also noted there was sufficient evidence to conclude that the defendant brought the gun to the house in his car. This would amount to an independent violation of § 6106, which also prohibits carrying a firearm in a vehicle without a license.

The Takeaway

For clients facing gun charges and for defense attorneys alike, Commonwealth v. Davis is an example of how strictly a Pennsylvania court may interpret the “place of abode” exception:

Occasional overnight stays and having keys are not enough.
You generally have to actually live there at the time in question. The building must either be your home or at least a temporary residence.
The Commonwealth does not necessarily have to rule out every theoretical exception.
Once the prosecution shows the defendant carried a firearm without a license outside his home or business, the burden effectively shifts to argue that the exception applies. The Commonwealth generally must disprove a defense beyond a reasonable doubt, but the defense has to introduce some evidence for a defense to apply.
Carrying in a vehicle creates a separate problem.
Even if the defendant had somehow established that he lived at the girlfriend’s house, bringing the firearm there in a car would still have violated § 6106(a)(1).