Wiretapping is a form of electronic surveillance that plays a critical role in criminal investigations. Wiretapping uses covert means in order to intercept, monitor, and record private telephone conversations and is normally done through a government informant/employee recording conversations. It is done without revealing the presence of government listening devices. This is most commonly used in investigations, specifically for organized crimes. These conversations can reveal the extent of the crimes being committed and the scope of the criminal organization. Wiretapping is also used to expose participants, potentially a series of conversations, and meetings which can lead to the potential prosecution of suspects.

Wiretapping has been an extremely controversial topic because many feel that is a violation of constitutional rights, specifically the fourth amendment, which is a person’s right to be free from unreasonable governmental searches and seizures. Although the people feel that their rights are being violated, the Supreme Court has found time and time again that wiretapping is in fact not a violation of the fourth amendment.

According to On Lee v. United States (1952), wiretapping is not a violation of the fourth amendment. This set a major precedent for future cases because when a new case came to light with case facts, the courts would refer back to this case. Since the ruling, there have been other cases that changed the general legislation but have still come to the overall conclusion that wiretapping is constitutional. There are many landmark cases that have taken place throughout the years, and it is still up for a solid debate even today.

In order for the government to wiretap, they must obtain a warrant first. This is to keep the actions legal and still constitutional. In order to obtain a warrant, there must be probable cause to justify a search, describe the conversation to be intercepted, and an anticipated time period for the requested surveillance. As far as other searches and seizures go exigent circumstances may potentially be grounds for the government to bypass obtaining a warrant. These circumstances would be if there is a life-threatening situation or a threat to national security.

In 2001, the Patriot Act was enacted. This was to protect the United States by allowing law enforcement to use surveillance against crime of terror. This would allow government to potentially wiretap anyone of suspicion in this country.  This is still controversial but is how government justifies wiretapping. The government is permitted to use this strategy and has continuously been granted the right to do so because it is necessary to ensure the greatest good for the greatest number of people. 

Your Bucks County criminal lawyers will have to fight and challenge the validity of the warrant and/or the extent of the wiretap.  It is an exhaustive process that is typically done after receipt of discovery and during pre-trial motions to suppress.  

Overall, government wiretapping is a commonly used form of electronic surveillance. It is permitted because it has been found to not be a violation of the fourth amendment or any other constitutional rights. This will remain being an extremely controversial issue to many Americans, however it is still legal and actively occurring.

         In recent years, surveillance technology has improved and grown drastically. License place readers are designed to track movements of passing drivers on highly active streets. These automatic license plate readers are mounted on police cars or on objects like road signs and bridges, use small, high-speed cameras to photograph thousands of plates per minute.

          The readers capture information including the license plate number, the date, time, and exact location. This collected information is often pooled into regional sharing systems. This information is collected in order to target highly populated areas to ensure the safety of civilians. The collection of this information is highly controversial because there are no privacy laws implemented. This is critical in dealing with people’s personal information. In 2012, the American Civil Liberties Union collected 26,000 pages of documents detailing the use of the license plate reader technology from around the country.

          The information in the documents collected display that there is little to no regulation so the readers are becoming a tool for surveillance and mass location tracking. This leads to pulling the information of innocent people when they may potentially be doing nothing wrong. The lack of regulation means that policies governing how long location data is kept vary widely.

          The software aspects of the system run on standard computer software and can be linked to other databases. It first uses a series of image manipulation techniques to detect, normalize and enhance the image of the number plate, and then optical character recognition (OCR) to extract the alphanumerics of the license plate. Once the photograph is taken it is uploaded to the central system where the data is collected and analyzed.

          Police cars can be fit with cameras, allowing officers to capture plates as they drive along on their normal path. Mobile cameras are more effective at capturing plates of parked cars. This allows for officers to also patrol parking lots and heavily populated regions. The concern with this is that people feel violated and as if their rights are being taken advantage of. There are many disagreements as far as the boundaries of surveillance go. To date there are only fourteen states have statutes in place for license plate reader technology. In addition to the lack of regulation there is also concern that they are too expensive and the funding is not available. A good portion of the funding comes from a justice assistance grant program and the homeland security grant program.

          A review of the purchase orders in the databases show that Vigilant and 3M are the largest vendors of license plate reader technology. Vigilant has been particularly involved in the lobbying for the adoption of the reader technology. Private companies are also using this modern technology. Particularly DRN and MVTrac are the two main companies. They hire outside contractors to collect license plate data for cars across the country. These companies share the data that they collected with banks, insurance companies, credit reporting agencies, and “auto recovery” companies in order to find fraud and identity theft. This also shares its data with police agencies.

          Most law enforcement agencies store plate data in the databases for many years and pass it along to other law enforcement agencies throughout their region. For example, in the greater Los Angeles area, nearly 30 individual law enforcement agencies pool their license plate data.  Agencies also share data across the state and even with federal agencies. Police can then search these massive amounts of accumulated data in future investigations. This is both beneficial and negative because that information is critical and allows for personal information to be revealed. The database in which this information is stored is easily accessible and alerts the officer in the car if there is a match. The officer can then search a DMV database to learn the name and identifying information of the owner of the vehicle.

          Overall, license plate reader technology is a highly advanced and modern concept. There is a valid argument from both sides of the spectrum. The most critical aspect of this is the civilians and their safety. It becomes political and in certain cases a violation of rights. Unfortunately, there is no way to please all views, so hopefully with the right regulations and policies created it could be extremely beneficial and positive for all parties involved.

          In 2014, Pennsylvania made a drastic attempt to limit the rates of fatal drug overdoses by implementing what is known as the Overdose Immunity Law (Bill 1164). Prior to the passing of this law, both the person who suffered and overdose and the person who called for help would be charged with various crimes. An example of this would be if someone called the police because their friend had overdosed and there was paraphernalia and drugs recovered from the scene, both the victim of the overdose and the friend who called would be charged with the crimes. After the law passing this concept was essentially thrown out the window. If a person is calling to help someone who is suffering from an overdose, the person who made the call is immune from criminal prosecution in many situations. This act “grants immunity to an overdosing person and those who render aid under limited circumstances.” The overall purpose of this is to encourage the reporting of drug related overdoses without a fear of prosecution.

            The legal definition of an overdose is "an acute medical condition, including, but not limited to, severe physical illness, coma, mania, hysteria or death, which is the result of consumption or use of one or more controlled substances causing an adverse reaction." This lays the foreground for the Overdose Immunity Law because it would classify what is acceptable to call and be granted immunity for. Under the new act a person cannot be charged with a crime or a violation of probation/parole if the Police only became aware of the drug offense because the reporting person transported the overdosing person to a healthcare facility, campus police or law enforcement agency; OR The reporting person has a reasonable, good faith belief that another is suffering from an overdose. Immunity is typically granted for a person experiencing a drug overdose if they are compliant after the fact. The offenses that they are immune from prosecution include but are not limited to; simple possession, purchasing from an unauthorized person, small amount of marijuana, and paraphernalia.

            There are cases where, as a Bucks County criminal lawyer, you encounter what an "overdose" means.  Some law enforcement agencies are narrow in their interpretation, but it is my argument that there is much more broad language for a reason -- because it is meant to stop horrible outcomes.  So, if a person is "sleeping" because they took drugs - they should be protected as that is an "overdose event".  

            The law was enacted in an attempt to impact the fatal overdose rates by granting immunity to individuals involved in the situation. This is also a case by case scenario. There are guidelines and general circumstances drawn up but not every case is going to match the law completely. The issues arise when a person calls when someone is overdosing and the background does not match the law perfectly. Then it is expected that law enforcement allow whatever is going go when a legitimate crime could be occurring. The law is still not solid and concrete but it is a drastic step forward from what it used to be.

            Overall, the Overdose Immunity Law has been wildly beneficial. This is valuable to the criminal justice system because it is extremely overcrowded and backed up.  This is also a wildly large step for addicts who have experienced the preventable deaths of their loved ones due to the fear to call the police and ask for help. Overdose death data is slowly changing, however bringing in these “good Samaritan laws” has been positive for the acceptance of drug addiction. This is not condoning drug use and addiction; it is more or less creating a safe haven for those in true need.

            Medication-Assisted Therapy (MAT) is a newer and controversial concept. This is the action of using drug therapy to help treat addiction. A very common drug used is Vivitrol, also known as naltrexone, which is a shot that blocks the effects of opioids. This includes pain relief and the blocking of the utopic feelings that may lead to drug abuse and addiction. It is an injection distributed to previously opioid dependent people in order to prevent relapse. The primary function is to prevent the “need” to use opioids. Vivitrol can also be used to treat alcoholism by reducing the urge to drink. This shot should not be received if someone is experiencing withdrawal. It is used in the early recovery steps of an addict because it is a non-addictive opiate antagonist given in shot form once a month. However simple and positive the drug may appear, there are various pros and cons.

          The benefits of vivitrol are very positive and should be considered in making the decision of whether or not to take the drug. Vivitrol can make drugs and alcohol less desirable, it is a shot once a month so there is no need to remember to take the medication every single day, it could potentially break the dependence on habit-forming drugs without running the risk of a second addiction being formed.  In today’s society addiction is a more open and discussed issue. There is less of a stigma surrounding addiction and people are more inclined to help addicts, and find ways to treat what is now considered a disease.  The ability to mitigate the urge to use drugs could possibly be life altering. It could allow for an addict to become a functioning member of society and no longer live their life strictly to fuel their addiction. For many people these pros are massively valuable and beneficial.

          The counter argument/ cons of vivitrol is that is there are numerous possible drawbacks that may affect the recipient. This treatment may not be safe for pregnant women or women who are breastfeeding; there is the risk of severe liver damage, there are harsh side effects that may occur; including but not limited to nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, headaches, dizziness, joint pain, depressed mood, pneumonia and allergic reactions. In addition, it is very expensive, and requires flexibility in schedule in order to attend monthly appointments to receive the shot. Finally, there is still the potential for overdosing on the drug due to the fact that addicts take drugs in attempt to chase a high and with vivitrol there is no high to reach.

          Overall, Vivitrol is extremely controversial and there are many possible outcomes that may occur due to the fact that addiction is so unpredictable and erratic. There is not necessarily a correct path to take and Vivitrol is not a solution but it could potentially help the recovery process especially for those who struggle the most.

            By definition a court room witness is a person who gives testimony under oath and penalty of perjury in a court of law. They are legally required to appear in a court room setting and speak on the cases behalf. Witnesses are often times in a position to speak in front of a jury, as well as all of the court room officials and permitted people however; federal cases are closed to the public. They are questioned by either the prosecutor or the defense. Witnesses are more likely than not familiar with a court room setting and are uninformed of their rights in front of a jury, specifically a federal grand jury.

             When a witness is given a subpoena, they are legally bound to be truthful and present in the court room. They are expected to answer blind questions to the fullest extent and as truthfully as they can. Typically, a witness is unaware of the fact that there are rules and rights, so they either lie or they only tell sections of a story in hopes to not find themselves in trouble as well. This can potentially be harmful to the witness, and jeopardize the case as a whole.

            One of the most critical rights that witnesses are entitled to is the ability to “plead the fifth”. This is taking the Fifth Amendment and not having to speak on the stand once the action is taken. This is a way to avoid self-incrimination and not have to perjure oneself on the stand. At any given point a witness can a “take the fifth” and refuse to answer the questions being asked. This is mostly used when a witness cannot speak on what they know or saw without showing evidence of their own crimes. The Fifth Amendment is protected under the constitution of the United States. If a witness can play their cards well, they may potentially be able to convince the prosecutor to grant them immunity. This ensures that they can openly speak and not incriminate themselves. This also means that the witnesses Fifth Amendment rights are temporarily terminated and they have to answer everything asked fully and truthfully. This is often times something a witness is unaware of.

            Another right that witnesses for a federal grand jury have is that they are entitled to an attorney before testifying. The witness’s attorney may not be in the court room, but they are permitted to be outside the Grand Jury room. The witness may step out of the court room to consult with their attorney before answering any questions they may be asked. This is critical to avoid self-incrimination if that was a potential issue.

            Witnesses are entitled to a form of reimbursement as well. They are often paid around forty dollars a day and are compensated for their travel expenses. There is no special treatment or bribe to get a witness on board to testify. There is a legal document that states they must attend court on the date and time and it is illegal to not do so. Witnesses are losing work and money but they are still expected to be present and will receive some form of small payment.

            Witnesses have the same rights that anyone has but the most important and critical thing is that they have the right to be informed and involved. They are not forced to speak off of the stand. They are not to be treated as if they committed a criminal act. They are simply people who may have seen or participated in an act that is missing information. They are granted rights that are critical to preserve the foundation of “innocent until proven guilty”. Witnesses are key players in a court room because they can make or break a case. They have rights that they must know especially because they are brought into the court room environment without wanting to be there, which will make them more inclined to be comfortable enough to speak on the cases behalf.

A drug case occurs.  Money is seized.  

A car is stopped and 10 pounds of pot are in it.  The vehicle is seized.  

A phone is seized that is suspected of being used to set up drug sales.  

A gun is used and is seized during the investigation.  

Seizure and forfeiture happens all the time.  I recently had a not guilty verdict as a Bucks County criminal lawyer where my client was accused of shooting a gun at people to terrorize or assault them.  He was NOT GUILTY.  The State Troopers refused to give his shotgun back.  I fought them through the forfeiture act and won.  

An item is seized for investigation.  An item is forfeited if the Commonwealth wants to keep it.  

Title 42 Chapter 58 controls Forfeiture of Assets, which was amended recently in August 2017.  

The change, according to the Governor, involves:

• Higher burdens of proof imposed on the Commonwealth;
• Protection for third-party owners by placing an additional burden of proof on the Commonwealth;
• Improved transparency in auditing and reporting;
• Specific and additional protection in real property cases by prohibiting the pre-forfeiture seizure of real property without a hearing, and;
• An extra level of protection for anyone acquitted of a related crime who is seeking the return of their property.

The new law requires a showing that the property is tied to criminal activity by "clear and convincing evidence."  Previously, it was a "preponderance of the evidence."  

Additionally, a person whose car is seized, for example, could petition to keep the vehicle if they can show that someone in the household needs the vehicle to be able to get back and forth from work.

Another positive change:  The new law prevents law enforcement from evicting people from a home before a forfeiture hearing.  The only exception is if the government can demonstrate to a judge that alleged criminal activity is likely to continue there, or the property will be sold or destroyed if police don't get it earlier.

             The guilty but mentally ill (GBMI) verdict is an option that allows juries and judges to establish that a defendant is guilty of committing an offense while formally acknowledging that the defendant has some form of a mental illness. This is not a replacement for the insanity defense but it does however present an alternative verdict option. This plea is most common when there is evidence presented on the defendant that proves either a lack of appreciation for the wrongness of their actions, or a lack of understanding of the penalties of their actions. The standard is still very high.  The guilty but mentally ill plea’s foundation is similar to a standard guilty plea; however it enhances the fact that the defendant needs mental health treatment in addition to the punishment of their crime.

            The guilty but mentally ill plea was first adopted in Michigan in 1982. It stemmed from the 1974 case of People vs. McQuillan. It was found that it is unconstitutional to detain people who were found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) for indeterminate periods of time because it violates their due process and equal protection rights; this is where the GBMI was implemented. If a defendant has a guilty but mentally ill verdict they are sentenced the same as a regular guilty plea. It is then in the courts hands to determine the type and extent of treatment the defendant requires. If/when the defendant is considered to be stable; they will then serve out the remainder of their sentence in prison. In order to be pronounced guilty but mentally ill the defendant must be evaluated for psychiatric treatment. If treatment is deemed necessary, a mental health plan is put into place for that specific person.  

            The idea behind the guilty but mentally ill plea option was that it would reduce the number of insanity acquittals and not allow for the not guilty but reason of insanity cases to be released early. It is a middle of the road solution. This was something new and progressive but not as difficult to prove as not guilty by reason of insanity.  There are critics who argue that the guilty but mentally insane verdict does not serve a particular purpose and does not have a real reason to be in place. The fear is that it is more political than it is for the defendant in question. It may potentially confuse a jury into thinking that it is some form of a compromise and they are helping the defendant. These are potential risks of finding a defendant guilty but mentally ill however, they have not proven to be credible and there is no research to back the theories.

            In essence, the guilty but mentally ill plea forces offender’s to be criminally responsible for their actions, but also allows for the proper care and treatment for their mental health illness.  As of right now, the guilty but mentally ill plea has only been adopted by twenty of the states but many experts have come to the conclusion that  whereas it does not necessarily impact sentencing or the punishment, it does however fill a gap by flagging defendants for mental health treatment in prisons. In almost all cases, this is a critical step in forming a treatment process while the defendant serves out their respected sentences. Supports of the guilty but mentally ill plea claim that there is more justice served by this trial outcome than in not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) cases. This is because those who are found guilty but mentally ill are held accountable for their actions and also are provided the opportunity to restore their mental stability, unlike those in NGRI pleas.

Typically given during a grand jury, a person can receive many different types of immunity.  This allows/forces them to testify (under the threat of contempt) with the presumed benefit of limited criminal exposure to their testimony.  One frequent form of immunity is "use and derivative use".  

The federal immunity statute (18 U.S.C. § 6002) allows the government to prosecute the witness using evidence obtained independently of the witness's immunized testimony. Section 6002 provides:

[N]o testimony or other information compelled under the order (or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other information) may be used against the witness in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to comply with the order.

If you are hoping to be a teacher in Pennsylvania, you have to be very particular about how you report a pending crime or a previous conviction.  The Teacher Information Management System ("TIMS") online registration asks applicants if they have ever been convicted of a misdemeanor or felony (not summary offense).  It also asks if a person has any pending criminal charges or subject to an inquiry or investigation by law enforcement anywhere.  If you are currently on ARD, you do have "pending criminal charges" so you would have to report that on your registration.  

If you are a current employee, all public school employees (i.e. public teachers) there is a a requirement that within 72 hours of an arrest for any crime listed in Section 111(e) or 111(f.1) of the School Code.  If a teacher does not self-report when required to do so, the teacher can be subjected to professional and employment discipline.  The potential courses of action that can be taken on the teacher depend on the type of crime charged and the type of victim (i.e. a child).  Thus, for a teacher, it is critical to balance your obligations to the criminal court (and your lawyer) as well as your employment obligations.  

We've already discussed how field sobriety tests do not violate the privilege against self-incrimination under the U.S. and Pennsylvania Constitutions.  

Videotaping a defendant's ability to walk in a straight line or to perform other physical tests does not invoke constitutional protections because, as is true for field sobriety tests generally, physical evidence is not communicative or testimonial in nature.  This is true in a case as a police officer stopped appellant after he had observed him weaving back and forth between highway and berm. The officer smelled the odor of alcohol from appellant's breath. Appellant was unable to perform field sobriety tests adequately and was placed under arrest, taken to a police station, and given a breathalyzer. The breathalyzer malfunctioned so appellant was taken to a hospital where a sample of his blood was drawn which established that his blood alcohol concentration was .34 percent. Appellant was tried without a jury and was found guilty of driving while under the influence of alcohol. Appellant sought review and the court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. The court held that the privilege against self-incrimination found in Pa. Const. art. I, § 9, did not preclude evidence of the results of field sobriety tests administered to citizens believed by the police to be under the influence of alcohol. The court determined that Article I, § 9 protected only testimonial evidence and a field sobriety test was neither testimonial in nature nor did it extract or communicate protected knowledge or thoughts.  Commonwealth v. Romesburg, 353 Pa. Super. 215 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1986)

The audio portion of the videotape, however, may run afoul of both Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections if the defendant is compelled by circumstances to utter words that reveal the defendant's thought processes.  The big case in this arena is Commonwealth v. Rishel, 399 Pa. Super. 413 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1990).  In that case, the Appellee driver was arrested after being involved in an accident where he might have been under the influence of alcohol. At the police station, appellee's processing was videotaped. Appellant commonwealth contended that the third section of the videotape where appellee was fingerprinted and photographed was erroneously suppressed. During this phase appellee made comments to police officers without the officers provocation because appellee had previously invoked his right to counsel. The court reversed and remanded the trial court's order suppressing the third section of appellee's videotaped information. The incriminating nature of the statements were exhibitions of physical characteristics, such as slurred speech, and not testimonial in nature since they were a not product of police interrogation. Therefore, appellee's U.S. Const. amend. V rights were not violated. The court further found that appellee's U.S. Const. amend. VI rights were not violated because counsel was not needed at the videotaping stage of the proceedings since the officer did not attempt to elicit incriminating statements from appellee.

Of course, once a defendant has invoked his or her Fifth or Sixth Amendment privileges, an audiotape of the defendant's responses to questions about how much alcohol he or she had consumed is inadmissible.  

In addition to such clearly incriminating statements, it appears that anything said while the field sobriety test is being taken may be inadmissible.  This is a point of exploration and potential attack for your Bucks County criminal lawyer or Quakertown DUI lawyer.  For example, when a defendant in Bucks County spoke only to get occasional clarifications of the officer's instructions for a field sobriety test, and, as part of the test, counted from 1,001 to 1,030, those verbal utterances were inadmissible.  The court declined to accept the Commonwealth's argument that the utterances were offered for the manner in which they were made, as symptomatic of intoxication, and not for the substantive content of the words spoken.  Similarly, when the defendant was obscene and uncooperative, and repeatedly commented on the absence of legal representation, the audiotape of those statements was inadmissible.

In Pennsylvania v. Muniz, the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in.  The Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol. Defendant argued that portions of a videotape should have been suppressed because he had not been given his Miranda warnings. The state appellate court agreed and vacated defendant's conviction, holding that when the physical nature of the tests began to yield testimonial and communicative statements, the protection afforded by Miranda was invoked. The Court found that the Miranda requirement afforded protection against self-incrimination to persons under custodial interrogation. The Court distinguished between testimonial and real or physical evidence when invoking the privilege. The Court held that a field sobriety test or taking a blood sample constituted real or physical evidence; whereas requiring defendant to respond to specific questions was testimonial. The Court distinguished questions from defendant while he was informed about the properties of a breathalyzer test from utterances made in response to personal questions from the police officer, such as the date of defendant's sixth birthday. The Court held that comments made by defendant while submitting to a test should not have been suppressed.

We all know that the Miranda Rights were put into action to stop a victim on self-incriminating himself. A person has the right to remain silent until a lawyer is present. Self-incrimination is exposing oneself to an accusation or charge of any type of crime.  Someone can admit to a crime after waving their rights, but reaming silent should not be something that puts you behind bars. If something like this did happen to you, you should call your Bucks County criminal lawyer and get this taken care of quickly.

In the case of Commonwealth v. Molina, the prosecutor tried to use the defendant’s pre-arrest silence to try to render a guilty verdict. Now according to the United States Supreme Court , and  5th amendment of the U.S. Constitution using someone’s silence is against the law, and should not be the basis of a guilty verdict.

In this case, Molina decided not to talk to the officers, and exercise his pre-arrest silent right to the full extent. In a clause in the 5th amendment it states that silence cannot be used as substantive evidence in proving ones guilt. Molina’s right was violated when the prosecutor in his closing arguments used his silence in a pre-arrest interview to imply that he was guilty of the victim’s disappearance.  The prosecutor’s argument was in no way evidence, he emphasized Molina’s silence as “most telling” asking “why” he did not talk to the officers, and told the jury to “factor that in” when deliberating the verdict.  Using his silence was not harmless because the other two testimonies were not overwhelming, and the violation of Molina’s rights could possibly end him up in jail. This right against “self-incrimination” can not be used in the courtroom to prove someone’s guilty according to the Supreme Court, but should it be legal as a tool for a prosecutor to use?  It will all be determined...someday.  For your information the cite of Molina is Commonwealth v. Molina 104 A.3d 430 (Pa. 2014).

Circumstantial evidence is something that a lot of lawyers use in their court cases in front of a jury or judge. This kind of evidence is evidence of an indirect nature.  A simple example of this in a non-legal setting is deer tracks in the snow. While the deer is not present while looking at this part of the snow, it is evident that the deer was here because of the tracks in the snow.  Thus this example showing that circumstantial evidence is really evidence of fact or circumstances from which the existence or nonexistence of a fact that may be interfered with.

During a trial, the accused defendant can be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence alone.  But the biggest thing that has to be done during a trial to find someone guilty just through circumstantial evidence is that the theme of guilt must have been flowing through all of the evidence presented and must be consistent. If you think that something went wrong with a case  in the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas involving circumstantial evidence call a Bucks County criminal lawyer for evidentiary help and trial defense.     

During a trial a defendant can be brought up on more than one charge and usually those charges are not merged.  In certain situations, however, charges are merged together.  No crimes shall be merged in court unless the different crimes arise from a single criminal act, and all of the statutory elements of one offense are included in the statutory elements of the other crime. Where the crimes merge for sentencing purposes only, the court can sentence the defendant only on the higher graded offense. If a charge got wrongly merged during your trial in the Court of Common Please in Bucks County you must immediately contact your Bucks county criminal lawyer.

In the case of Commonwealth v. Belsar, there are different elements that could be identified for the charges to merge but according to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court they do not.

Clarence Belsar purchased a .22 caliber rifle and shot and robbed someone that he knew in a parking lot. He was charged with aggravated assault, and robbery. Now the prosecution was trying to merge the charges while Mr. Belsar was standing trial. For the charges to be merged that must have the same elements in their respective statutes.  They were not merged because aggravated assault has the element of requiring proof of circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life which the charge of robbery does not own, and robbery has the element of proof of theft that aggravated assault does not have. According to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court since the two crimes do not have the same elements they do not merge.  To find out more about this specific case; the site is Commonwealth v. Belsar 544 Pa. 346 (Pa. 1996).

If you think you did not receive a fair speedy trial please contact your Bucks County criminal lawyer.

In the 6th amendment of the U.S. Constitution every person is entitled to a speedy trial.  This speedy trial clause only comes into play when the government has officially accused someone of a crime by either arresting him or her or indicting him or her. This clause is so important because it keeps defendants out of jail for an indefinite period of time, and it lets him or her have the opportunity to prepare an adequate defense for when they are on trial. If a trial is delayed for a long period of time, the witnesses may not be able to show up, and evidence may be lost in the long waiting process. 

In certain cases, if someone does not show up for their speedy trials they will forfeit some of the rights that they would have if they did show up. In the case of Commonwealth v. Feeney , Mr. Feeney did not show up to his trial, and gave up something that could have helped him get out of the charges that were levied against him.

Double jeopardy and its related concepts constitute one of the more complicated areas in criminal law and the literature exploring the particular aspects of this area is vast.  

Claims raising double jeopardy and corresponding issues may be based on one or more sources of law:  the federal constitutional double jeopardy clause, Pennsylvania's constitutional double jeopardy clause, Pennsylvania statutory law, especially section 109-111 of the Crimes Code, and other related rules as developed in court decisions or promulgated in the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure.  The recurring issues  include:  1)  the reach of the federal and Pennsylvania double jeopardy cluses, e.g., what constitutes "a second prosecution" or "multiple punishments" for "the same offense;" 2) the federal constitutional doctrine of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion; 3) the compulsory joinder rule codified in the Pennsylvania Crimes Code and expanded by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court; and 4) the state and federal decisions construing these.  

In analyzing potential issues in this area, Bucks County criminal lawyers should consider which law(s) a claim might be based and whether more than one constitutional (state or federal) and/or statutory claim is available.  The facts of the case will need to be carefully evaluated and measured against the varying requirements for the different claims.  For example, a claim based on federal double jeopardy protections only covers cases dealing with the "same offense" as defined in federal law.  If the claim is based on state constitutional law, the double jeopardy clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution has generally been interpreted as at least coextensive with its federal counterpart, but an issue may arise which provides counsel with the opportunity to argue that Pennsylvania's double jeopardy clause should provide even greater protections than the federal clause.  Furthermore, as often happens, even though a case may afford no constitutional double jeopardy arguments, statutory relief or procedural rules may be available.  

At the outset, Bucks county counsel should be aware that various court interpretations of state and federal double jeopardy and related protections are not always clear or consistent.  Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Legislature do not always agree on what the law is or should be.  

Sufficiency of the evidence refers to a principle that helps the accusations of a suspect in any kind of case. This process is the standard of reviewing evidence in a criminal conviction pending an appeal with existing evidence.  Without this principle, convictions could be overturned easily. If your case went awry because of this principle you should contact your Bucks County criminal lawyer.

A case that provides the public with a prime example of how this principle works is Commonwealth v. Gonzalez.  This is a tricky case because it involves a cerebral palsy victim and how much of the evidence is sufficient in upholding the sentence.

David Gonzalez was convicted of rape, aggravated indecent assault, and sexual assault. He appealed the case, but because of this principle of “sufficiency of evidence” the conviction stood.  Gonzales and the victim were in a relationship for a few months, and participated in some acts of physical intimacy, but not sex. The victim stated that she did not want to have premarital sex, but Gonzalez put her in a powerless position with her cell-phone, and crutches out of reach. He positioned himself, and her for sexual intercourse. She did not want this happening, and since suffering from cerebral palsy she did not resist, or call out for help, but did tell Gonzales she did not want it happening. The victim testified saying that she did in fact say, “no don’t” and this evidence was enough to support the findings of “forcible compulsion”, thus making it easier for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to uphold these charges against the defendant Gonzalez.  The case is Commonwealth v. Gonzalez 109 A.3d 711 (Pa. Super 2015).  

Like defendants who are put on trial and sentenced , juveniles who are under the age of 18 have certain standards that are just specific to them. Their disposition is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed by this court absent of abuse or discretion.  Any Bucks County criminal lawyer will know the programs and options available for the juvenile, especially a Bucks County Juvenile Lawyer.  The purpose of the Juvenile Act is for the protection of public interest, to provide children who have committed delinquent acts, programs of supervision, care, and rehabilitation, which provide balanced attention to the protection of the community. 

From different cases over the years, the court has come up with the 4 different guidelines for trial courts, and probation officers to deal with during these types of cases. The guidelines are 1). The facts should establish a purposeful and intentional perpetration of actual or feigned acts, which, if carried out would cause injury, disarray or psychological disturbance to the people affected by this act. 2). Each individual when arrested, should be quickly but thoroughly evaluated by responsible police investigators, mental health investigators, and juvenile correctional experts to determine the appropriate cause of action. 3). The child’s family relationships, stability, deviance, interaction with others, and peers/associates must be evaluated in terms of their impact on the child’s conduct and behavior. And finally last but not least 4). A thorough and accurate compilation of the actual or derivative effect of the behavior on other individuals must be assessed prior to the ultimate disposition of the case.

In any case without probable cause, an office or any law enforcement officer needs a warrant to search a car, house, business, etc. A Warrant is a specific type of authorization by a judge to have permission to search someone’s property, and a warrantless search is something that goes on without a warrant or the judges consent.

If you were involved in a warrantless search and something happened  where you may be facing criminal charges, you should contact your Bucks County criminal lawyer to get things straightened out with the officers and the judge and/or to fight the case.

A case explaining a warrantless search is Commonwealth v Bowmaster.  Two police officers executed a search of Mr. Bowmaster’s house and shed without a proper warrant, thus making this a “warrantless search”. The two officers received a tip that an unregistered stolen firearm was in Mr. Bowmaster shed, and was observed by a burglary victim’s son. The officers thus believed that a stolen firearm was in the shed, and conducted a search of the house and shed. In the case, the Commonwealth presented no evidence to support the officers’ theory that the search of the property could not wait until the morning, or until a search warrant could be obtained.  Even if the officer had some probable cause to search because of the tip, there are no burning circumstances that existed to justify a warrantless search. Thus making the evidence suppressed and the case having no grounds to move forward.  The case cite is Commonwealth v. Bowmaster 101 A.3d 789 (Pa. Super 2014)

It is well-settled that field sobriety tests do not violate the privilege against self-incrimination under the federal or state constitution. 

The U.S. Const. amend. V provides each individual with the right not to be compelled to be a witness against oneself in any criminal case. There are established safeguards to ensure that this right under U.S. Const. amend. V is not abrogated by the actions of overzealous police during custodial interrogations. The Miranda safeguards are as follows: Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. If, however, he indicates in any manner and at any state of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking there can be no questioning. Unless these safeguards are followed, Miranda prohibits prosecutorial use of a defendant's statements.  These are important for your Bucks County criminal lawyer to protect and review with you.  

In that case, Defendant was convicted of driving while under the influence of alcohol pursuant to 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3731(a)(1), and sentenced to a period of imprisonment of not less than 30 days nor more than 23 months. On appeal, the court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial, holding that the audio portion of the videotaped reenactment of defendant's field sobriety test violated defendant's right to counsel as provided by U.S. Const. amend. V and U.S. Const. amend. VI. Defendant's verbalizations of asking questions and making comments during the videotaping should have been suppressed because the statements were compelled and in the purview of constitutional protections. The court found that defendant's right to counsel had attached at the time of his arrest. The commonwealth failed to show that defendant's ambiguous assertion of his right to counsel had clearly evidenced that defendant understood and waived his Miranda rights. The court held that the video portion wherein defendant performed the physical acts of the field sobriety test was properly admitted into evidence, but the audio portion violated defendant's right to counsel and should have been suppressed.  Commonwealth v. Waggoner, 373 Pa. Super. 23 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1988).  

The court in Waggoner, continued, 

In Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966), the Supreme Court held that the fifth amendment "privilege protects an accused only from being compelled to testify against himself, or otherwise provide the state with evidence of a testimonial or communicative nature, and that the withdrawal of blood" and admission of a blood analysis report does not involve the compulsion prohibited by the fifth amendment. Id. at 761, 86 S.Ct. at 1830. Thereafter, in Commonwealth v. Kloch, 230 Pa.Super. 563, 327 A.2d 375 (1975), our Superior Court used Schmerber as the basis for ruling that Miranda warnings are not required when a defendant is requested to take a field sobriety test. Id., 230 Pa.Superior Ct. at 572, 327 A.2d at 381; see also Commonwealth v. Benson, 280 Pa.Super. 20, 29, 421 A.2d 383, 387 (1980) ("requiring a driver to perform physical tests . . . does not violate the privilege against self-incrimination because the evidence procured is of a physical nature rather than testimonial and therefore no Miranda warnings are required."); accord, State v. Nece, 206 N.J.Super. 118, 501 A.2d 1049 (Law Div. 1985) (fifth amendment does not apply to physical movements involved in sobriety tests because the movements are nontestimonial). The Kloch court stated, "[T]he driver is  the source of 'real or physical evidence,' compulsion of which does not come within the purview of the fifth amendment." 230 Pa.Super. at 572, 327 A.2d at 381 (citation omitted). Since requiring a defendant to perform a field sobriety test does not involve the type of compulsion associated with the fifth amendment, no Miranda warnings were required prior to videotaping Waggoner performing the physical acts involved in the sobriety tests. Commonwealth v. Conway, 368 Pa.Super. 488, 534 A.2d 541 No. 2570 Philadelphia 1987 (1987). However, in addition to performing the physical acts involved in the sobriety tests, Waggoner asked questions and made comments during the course of the sobriety tests. Furthermore, after the tests, Waggoner answered questions posed by Officer Neri. These verbalizations are within the purview of the fifth amendment. In Commonwealth v. Bruder, 365 Pa.Super. 106, 528 A.2d 1385, (1987), Bruder was stopped by a police officer for driving  through a red light. Upon noticing Bruder's demeanor, the police officer asked him to recite the alphabet and walk in a straight line, heel to toe. The court held that although Bruder's act of walking in a straight line was a physical test not requiring Miranda warnings, his recitation of the alphabet was communicative in nature. Therefore, we held that because the alphabet recitation was elicited before Bruder had received his Miranda warnings, the recitation should have been excluded as evidence.

After-discovered evidence or newly discovered evidence refers to evidence that existed at the time of a motion or trial, but could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence prior to a court ruling on a motion or the trials completion.  Upon later discovery, the losing party may assert after-discovered evidence as grounds to reconsider a motion or order a new trial.  If something like this did happen to you, you should call you Bucks County Criminal Lawyers  and get this taken care of quickly.

In the case, Commonwealth v. Trinidad, Trinidad ordered a new trial upon discovery of after-discovered evidence of an affidavit that said the police pressured the victim into identifying Trinidad as the shooter.

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.