There are two possibilities that could bring about a mistrial.  A mistrial can occur when a jury is unable to reach a verdict and there must be a new trial with a new jury.  The other situation that can bring about a mistrial is when there is a serious procedural error or misconduct that would result in an unfair trial, and the judge ends the case without a decision on the merits and awards a new trial.  If something like this did happen to you, you should call your Bucks County criminal lawyers  and get this taken care of quickly.

In the case, Commonwealth v. Brooker, the court did not make a mistake in denying Brooker’s request for a mistrial.  Brooker requested a mistrial because the common wealth insinuated that Brooker was a drug dealer.

In this case, the Commonwealth insinuated that Brooker was a drug dealer, and that a dispute over drug turf was Brooker’s motive for the murder.  While the question of whether or not Brooker sold drugs may have been improper to ask the police, the error was harmless.  The question merely stemmed from an accumulation of independent evidence indicating that Brooker was a drug dealer; a witness made an in-court identification of Brooker and stated that she knew Brooker because she sold him drugs.  These independent forms of evidence made the court dismiss the Commonwealth’s improper question and reject Brooker’s request for a mistrial.  For your information the cite for Brooker is Commonwealth v. Brooker 103 A.3d 325 (Pa.Super 2014).

Do prisoners have Constitutional rights at the Bucks County Correctional Facility?  They are limited, but they still exist.  The case law is pretty slim with respect to outlining what those rights are.  Typically, any case arising out of a prison relates to assaults or contraband.  Contraband cases especially relate to Constitutional rights since the contraband is normally found as a result of a search and seizure.  These are the cases your Bucks County criminal lawyer should know about:  

In Wallington, the record shows that appellant, on February 9, 1975, had been arrested and was being held at Philadelphia Police headquarters. While he and twelve others were detained in a cell, one inmate of that cell reported a theft of $ 500.00 from his person. All inmates were searched, and appellant was found to have $ 230.00, whereas when he arrived at headquarters some few hours previously, he possessed only $ 7.02. The other inmates were found to have various amounts. The indictments which were the subject of appellant's trial followed. The alleged crimes for which appellant first had been arrested are not a part of this appeal.The intermediate appellate court denied appellant's petition. The court affirmed the decision of the lower courts. It held that fourth amendment freedoms were justifiably limited in the prison environment to the extent that prison officials might search prisoners and seize contraband or evidence of suspected criminality and that otherwise-recognized safeguards of amend. IV were not cognizable unless and until such searches and seizures were solely for the purposes of harassment. The court stated that proper prison discipline called for prompt action when crime was committed in jail. It found that appellant's arrest was proper and with probable cause. Commonwealth v. Wallington, 238 Pa. Super. 427 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1976).

in Moore, pursuant to a police request, the mailroom pulled defendant's non-privileged mail in order to determine there whereabouts of defendant's brother in connection with threats against a witness. Defendant's brother was taken into custody based on leads from two items of mail. Defendant and his acquaintances used coded references and avoided specific names, demonstrating an effort to conceal their dialogue. The appellate court held such effort indicated they had no subjective expectation that their correspondence would remain private. Thus, defendant's coded references belied his assertion of a subjective expectation of privacy. Prison officials informed defendant about the prison's mail inspection procedure when he first arrived at prison. Thus, there was no reasonable subjective expectation of privacy and defendant could not claim such under the Fourth Amendment. Given the co-extensive analyses required by the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions, there was no compelling reason to construe Pa. Const. art. 1, § 8 as providing greater rights than U.S. Const. amend. IV. Defendant had no constitutional right to privacy in his non-privileged prison mail.  Commonwealth v. Moore, 2007 PA Super 207 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007).

 In any case, evidence plays a major role, and a big factor surrounding the evidence in a case is the weight of the evidence.  Weight of evidence is the significance of the proof on side of a cause is greater than on the other.  In many states, judges are prohibited from instructing juries on the weight to be given to evidence.  When a verdict has been rendered against the weight of the evidence, the court may grant a new trial.  If something like this did happen to you, you should call your Bucks County criminal lawyers  and get this taken care of quickly.

In the case of Commonwealth v. Weathers, the trial court did not err in rejecting Weathers’ claim that the verdict of guilty for Criminal Mischief was against the weight of the evidence.  

Sometimes the Commonwealth will nolle prosequi a case when they realize the charges were improper.  Other times, there are more nefarious reasons.  A nolle prosequi is a voluntary withdrawal by the Bucks County prosecutor of proceedings on a particular bill or information, which can at any time be retracted to permit revival of proceedings on the original bill or information.

Sometimes, the Commonwealth will seek to nolle pros a case because it is unhappy with what occurred at the preliminary hearing.  They want a second bite at the appeal to try to take a Bucks County criminal defense lawyer's client back to add more charges at the preliminary hearing.  

One case outlines the potential -- In Rega, the defendant was charged with many violent offenses in five different complaints. He had already been convicted on some of them when the Commonwealth moved to nolle prosequi, without prejudice, some of the others. The appellate court, after noting that rulings on such motions were appealable despite their interlocutory nature, held that the trial court had failed to follow several of the procedures mandated by Pa. R. Crim. P. 585 and case law interpreting the rule. First, there had been no hearing in open court. Second, it was not possible to review whether the reason given by the Commonwealth was valid and reasonable where the Commonwealth had supplied no reason and the trial court had simply inferred what it might be. Finally, according to Pa. R. Crim. P. 600, defendant had a valid speedy trial claim that he had been precluded from raising in opposition to the grant of a motion that might have resulted in indefinite postponement of his prosecution. Therefore, while the appellate court did not rule on the merits, it required the trial court to do so once again. So, the outcome was that the court vacated the order granting the Commonwealth's motion and remanded the matter for a hearing at which the Commonwealth would be required to provide a reasonable basis for the motion and defendant would have an opportunity to contest the motion and present speedy trial claims.  Commonwealth v. Rega, 2004 PA Super 330 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004).  The "Rega Standard" thus states, there are two factors to be considered when a request for a nolle prosequi is made: (1) whether the reason given by the Commonwealth for requesting the nolle prosequi is valid and reasonable, and (2) whether the defendant, at the time the nolle prosequi is requested, has a valid speedy trial claim. Moreover, when a court considers a motion for nolle prosequi, it should afford both parties an opportunity to argue the merits of the motion. 

Remember - the "speedy trial claim" is Rule 600.  We have gone over includable time in Rule 600, excludable time in Rule 600, and Rule 600 in juvenile matters.  

In every case there has to be something substantial for the police officer to conduct a search or stop on a suspect. This is a called reasonable suspicion and probable cause.

There are cases where the officer receives information, or sees something suspicious and acts on his instincts and searches the suspect, or searches the car, house, etc.  So if you have a probable cause or reasonable suspicions cases you should explore with your Bucks County criminal attorney on why there was probable cause to why you were searched.

A case showing these two actions (and highlighting their differences) is Commonwealth v. Thompson.  This case is a classic example of probable cause, and it was executed to a tee. A police officer was tipped off from citizens that suspected drug activity was going on around a specific convenience store. While keeping surveillance of the store, the officer noticed Thompson signal to another driver, and they both left the lot together in their separate cars. The officer followed the cars to a nearby parking lot, and witnessed Thompson get in the other car and received cash from the passenger. Thompson then took the cash, went to a hiding place near a fence in the lot, and tosses a plastic baggie into the other car.

After witnessing this entire ordeal the office had “probable cause” to arrest Thompson on drug related charges stemming from the suspected drug transaction.  The officer also had “reasonable suspicion” to follow Thompson to the parking lot because of the reported drug activity, and Thompson’s motion to the other driver. Because of the officer’s observations he found a plastic baggie containing over 100 prescription pills, and it was reasonable to believe that it was the same bag Thompson gave the passenger moments ago.  The case cite is Commonwealth v. Thompson 93 A.3d 478 (Pa Super. 2014).

Double Jeopardy refers to a second prosecution for the same offense after the acquittal, conviction, or multiple punishments for the same offense.  Double Jeopardy seeks to avoid double trial and double conviction.  If you feel you have fallen victim to double jeopardy you should call your Bucks County criminal lawyers  and get this taken care of quickly.

In the case of Commonwealth v. Ball, double jeopardy was violated when Ball was re-tried on the lesser offense.  

When to Strike

A double jeopardy issues becomes ripe for review when the Commonwealth decides to undertake reprosecution and the issue is properly raised by a motion to dismiss filed prior to retrial.  

In Daidone, the Appellants' convictions of first degree murder were overturned on direct appeal. Appellants sought to have the charges dismissed upon retrial for violation of double jeopardy, and the trial court denied the motions. Appellants challenged, contending that retrial would constitute double jeopardy. The court reversed and discharged appellants. The court held that retrial was barred by double jeopardy because the prosecutor's misconduct evidenced an intent to prejudice appellants so as to deny them a fair trial.  Commonwealth v. Daidone, 453 Pa. Super. 550 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1996).

The proper procedure for raising a bar to prosecution, such as a former acquittal or conviction, is a written pretrial motion, contained within the omnibus pretrial motion.  Double jeopardy issues may be waived if not properly raised prior to trial.  However, a claim raising the double jeopardy prohibition against multiple punishments is a challenge to the legality of a sentence and as such, may be raised at any time.  

The point is this -- if your Bucks County criminal lawyer gets a case dismissed and the government refiles, you must be ready to file a motion to dismiss the case.  This will preserve your rights and is the proper timing to prevent future harassment.  

After sentencing, there can be jail time.  Which jail is always a question for state sentences.  Obviously, the different sentences come with different jails that people would go to. With a maximum term of five or more years the defendant must be committed to a Department of Corrections for confinement. Minimum terms of two or more years but less than 5 years may be committed to the Department of Corrections or the county prison under the jurisdiction of the court. Maximum terms of two years or less the defendant are committed to a county prison under the court's jurisdiction.  If you think that you or someone has been wrongly imprisoned somewhere call a Bucks County criminal lawyer.  In Bucks County, the maximum legal sentence for a “county sentence” is 11 ½ months.

Prosecutorial misconduct is something that happens when the prosecutor goes beyond his/her limits and tries to sway the jury to wrongly convict someone, or impose a harsher sentence or punishment than what is appreciate. If you think the prosecutor in a case has overstepped their boundaries and is guilty of this misconduct you should contact and talk with a Bucks County criminal lawyer about this.

Prosecutors are not allowed to overstep their boundaries when talking to a jury, and in some cases they do, and some cases they do not. In Commonwealth v. Burno the prosecutor does say some pretty strong statements but does not overstep her limits.

In the case of Commonwealth v. Burno some might say that the prosecutor violated the defendant's rights by going overboard and by committing “prosecutorial misconduct.” According to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court , she did not. The prosecutor referred to Burno’s prior conviction, and bad acts, which did not violate anything according to the Supreme Court justices. The prosecutor was also trying to refuse the Defendant's claims of being a “good family man”.  This was not misconduct because she did not argue that he should be convicted solely because he wasn’t a “good family man”, and she did not lead the jury to believe that he committed the crimes of the case because of his prior convictions.  Another close call that the Supreme Court ruled that was not misconduct was something in another part of the prosecutor’s closing arguments. In the argument,s the prosecutor stated that she knew for a “fact” that Burno was a “coward” because he shot someone when the victim was on the ground.  This did not violate anything because it did not demonstrate the prosecutor’s personal belief, but was a statement based on facts and evidence with some flair on it. The Supreme Court ruled this not “prosecutorial misconduct”.  See Commonwealth v. Burno 94 A.3d 956 (Pa. 2014)

Death penalty cases are rare everywhere, including Bucks County.  But they certainly exist.  

The right to a jury which has the ability to render a verdict according to the evidence despite the penalty which may be imposed extends to each party in a first degree murder case, whether or not the death penalty is sought.  A sentence of death is unlawful and cannot be carried out if the jury that imposed or recommended it was chosen by excluding veniremen (jurors) for cause simply because they voiced general objections to the death penalty or expressed conscientious or religious scruples against its infliction.  

Only prospective jurors who are irrevocably committed, before the trial has begun, to vote against the penalty of death regardless of the facts and circumstances that might emerge in the case can be struck for cause.  Although it is clear that a conviction by an otherwise death-qualified jury will be reversed if the defendant an prove that the jury was prone to favor the prosecution in the determination of guilt, such a showing has yet to be made in a Pennsylvania or Bucks County court by a Bucks County criminal lawyer.  There is no constitutional requirement that each juror be "life-qualified."  Thus, while "life qualifying" questions are permitted, they are not required, and the absence of such questions alone does not implicate error by the trial court.  Similarly, the mere fact that counsel may not have asked the specific question as to whether a prospective juror would vote for a life sentence in the right case, does not necessarily mean that counsel was ineffective, especially if the jurors indicated that they will follow the law as instructed by the judge and that they would be fair and impartial.  Nor does it constitute ineffective assistance of counsel to fail to ask prospective jurors if they would automatically impose the death penalty.  

Nevertheless, a trial court may not refuse to allow all prospective jurors to be asked whether they would automatically impose the death penalty for first degree murder.  A defendant's death sentence was vacated when the court did not permit counsel to individually question all prospective jurors regarding the death penalty, notwithstanding whether they responded affirmatively to the life qualifying questions posed by the court during general voir dire.