Bucks County Criminal Defense Lawyers

Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 401 directly deals with relevance and potential objections.  There are a host of cases, like Commonwealth v. Boczkowski of 2004, that establish that evidence is relevant if it logically tends to establish a material fact in the case or tends to make a fact at issue more or less probable or supports a reasonable inference or presumption regarding a material fact.  

It is important to note -- evidence relating to credibility is still relevant.  But, these seemingly simple rule gets examined a lot further and is important for all Bucks County Criminal Defense Lawyers.  

Commonwealth v. McNeely from 1987 created a really strong prong test for the issue of relevance.  The court breaks down relevance into two parts:  

1. Materiality - what is the relation between the propositions for which the evidence is offered and the issue in the case?  
2. Probative value - the tendency (does it make it more likely or less likely?) of the evidence to establish the proposition that it is offered to prove?

Remember with materiality-- if something is offered to help prove a point which is not a matter in the issue, you have offered evidence which is immaterial.  

There is another aspect to probative value and one you've probably heard on a crime show before -- relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading of the jury, wast of time or needless presentation of cumulative evidence (see Pa. R.E. 403 and the case of Henery v. Shadle of 1995).  One key word in this description is "unfair prejudice".  Of course a prosecutor will present some evidence that will prejudice you (after all, they are seeking your conviction).  But, is the prejudice unfair?  

Typically, unfair prejudice in my experience in the Bucks County courts revolves around the evidence enflaming a jury.  Gruesome photos of a crime scene is a standard example. 

A notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of sentencing of a summary offense.  

A person who pled guilty for their Summary Case may file an appeal for a trial de novo following the entry of the guilty plea.  Essentially, in a trial de novo trial de novo, the Bucks County Judge in the Court of Common Pleas will hear the case without a jury.  The officer who observed the charges must appear and testify at the trial de novo, unless the defendant waives their presences.  Sometimes, however, the Bucks County trial judge can determine that good cause exists for the officer's absence and the matter may be continued.  

If a judge finds the defendant guilty, the judge must impose sentence in open court.  

A plea of Nolo Contendere comes from the Latin meaning "I will not contest."  Some lawyers call it a "no contest" plea. Essentially, an individual is admitting that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has enough information/evidence to obtain a conviction and agrees to accept the punishment that is handed down from the Bucks County judge.  It is not an admission of guilt.  

In my experience, a "nolo plea" is not used frequently because they still must be accepted by the judge.  Judge's like to see that an individual is accepting responsibility for their actions and crimes.  In a Nolo plea, they are not doing so.  Thus, if the facts are egregious or there is no substantive reason for an individual to plead nolo, a judge may not accept such a plea.  

Frequently, these pleas are entered to avoid exposure on a companion civil case.  If a person pleads guilty in a criminal case and they are being sued in civil court for the issues arising out of the criminal case (i.e. personal injury), the guilty plea can be used as an admission.  But, a plea of nolo contendere cannot be used as an admission in a civil suit.  

Admissions are an exception to the hearsay rule in Pennsylvania and thus Bucks County.  This is contrary to many other states and the Federal Rules of Evidence.  

For an admission to be admitted, the statement/admission must have been made by a "party opponent".  So, what is a party opponent?  Normally, this would be the defendant.  Why?  Well, the defendant would be available to testify and refute such a statement.  As Commonwealth v. Watkins of 2003 allows, a defendant's voluntary pretrial admissions or confessions are admissible as substantive evidence under the admission exception as long as such admissions or confessions comply with constitutional safeguards (i.e. no illegal detention or arrest occurred).  

Sometimes, there is a blending of civil and criminal law with the admission exception.  For example, say a person gets a DUI in Quakertown and there is an accident involved in the DUI.  If they plead guilty in the Bucks County criminal court, their guilty plea can be used as an admission in a civil personal injury suit.  But, if a person enters a plea of nolo contendere or withdraws their guilty plea, no admissions occur for a civil suit.  

Say a witness is presented and is testifying in a Bucks County criminal prosecution.  Then, the witness begins testifying to what they overheard in a phone call with another person.  This involves double or multiple hearsay and is part of Pa.R.E. 805.  

Essentially, hearsay within hearsay is only admissible if each statement is within an exception of the hearsay rule.  This is a well-established rule regarding independent exceptions (see Commonwealth v. Scott from 1983).  So, even if one of the statements has an exception that could be admitted, the other must also have an exception.  

Now, if there are more than two levels, there is a bit of diminishing marginal returns.  Bucks County criminal defense lawyers would be wise to review Commonwealth v. Peay of 2002 that states, "experience suggests an inverse relationshiop between the reliability of a statement an the number of hearsay lawyers it contains," where the case cites U.S. v. Fernandez, 892 F.2d 976 (11th Cir. 1989).  

We spoke about the general definition of hearsay and the confrontation clause.  Sometimes, a prosecutor will try to elicit hearsay indirectly by allowing the jury to infer what was said to the witness.  It is important to be on your toes for such an opportunity to object.  This can happen in a simple case with a Quakertown DUI lawyer or a complicated case with a Bucks County Criminal Defense Attorney.  

Indirect or concealed hearsay is a nice little trick to trying to reveal what was said.  Here's an example:  Commonwealth v. Farris from 1977.  The Commonwealth carefully avoided any direct hearsay issues by simply asking, "as a result of talking with Gary Moore [who just happened to be an alleged co-conspirator], what did you do?"  The answer was, "I arrested Emanuel Farris."  This is indirect hearsay.  Essentially, the Commonwealth is implying that Gary Moore pointed to Farris as a co-conspirator and this was inadmissible hearsay.  

In Commonwealth v. Thomas from 1990, the judge found that "improper oblique narrative" was hearsay.  In that case, the prosecutor lead the police officer to testify that as a result of his interview of a witness (who was unavailable for cross examination), he proceeded to arrest the defendant.  

Information received by police to merely show their action is generally not hearsay.  For example, hearing the content of police radio calls is generally not hearsay (see Commonwealth v. Sneed from 1987).  However, even this exception has....well...exceptions.  The Supreme Court has indicated that the police conduct exception should not be used as a pretext (see Commonwealth v. Palsa from 1989).  

Thus, when a prosecutor says, "Don't tell me what your conversation was with Mr. X, but tell me what you did as a result," you better be ready to object.  

Please see the rule against hearsay for further advisement:  http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/225/chapter8/s802.html

The Rule Against Hearsay is a sometimes confusing issue in criminal trials and preliminary hearings in Bucks County.  Hearsay is an out of court statement that is offered in court as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.  Hearsay can be oral or written.  Hearsay can be gestures.  Hearsay statements fundamentally cannot be cross-examined by a Bucks County criminal lawyer nor are they subject to being made under oath.  Thus, there is a general acceptance of untrustworthiness and not reliable.  Moreover, the Confrontation Clause is not possible in hearsay.  

An exception to the hearsay rule is that the statement is not being admitted to prove the truth of the matter asserted.  Instead, it is only being stated to prove that the statement was made.  For example, if I am alleged to have a mental instability and a person states that I told them, "He yelled out 'I'm the Pope'".  This statement is not to prove that I am the Pope, but rather that I made such a statement.  

The Confrontation Clause of the 6th Amendment mandates that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused "shall enjoy the right...to be confronted with the witnesses against him."  In Crawford v. Washington, the Supreme Court determined that if a hearsay statement was "testimonial" in nature, it could not be introduced at trial, in the absence of the declarant (the person who allegedly said what was said), unless the defendant had a previous chance to cross-examine the declarant.  

Crawford involved a tape-recorded statement given by the defendant's wife to police describing the stabbing with which the defendant was charged.  The wife did not have to testify at the trial because she was protected under the marital privilege rule.  

The wife's statement was admitted at trial over objection because the trial court determined that the statement had "particularized guarantees of trustworthiness."  

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the importance of the confrontation clause and drew a distinction between testimonial and nontestimonial statements.  

There are a variety of options in filing pre-trial motions in Bucks County when an individual is charged with a crime.  A short, but important list, is:

• Motion to Suppress
• Motions for Bail and Bail Reductions
• Habeas Corpus
• Motion for Discovery
• Bill of Particulars
• Motions in Limine
• Motions to Dismiss

As always, you should consult with your Bucks County criminal lawyer to find out more about what motions should be filed.  

I have consistently mentioned and highlighted the importance of pre-trial motions, even in summary trials.  The Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure is the starting point for pre-trial motions.  Rule 575 is the section that handles Motions and Answers.  Rule 581 covers the Suppression of Evidence.  A Bucks County defendant's criminal defense attorney has a right to make a motion to the court to suppress any evidence alleged to have been obtained in violation of the defendant's rights.  

The Motion to Suppress shall state specifically and with particularity the evidence sought to be suppressed, the grounds for suppression, and the facts and events in support thereof.  The hearing on the Motion to Suppress shall be in open court and outside the presence of the jury.  

The Commonwealth has the burden of going forward with the evidence and of establishing that the challenged evidence was not obtained in violation of the defendant's rights.  What this means is, the Commonwealth goes first in presenting their witnesses and evidence to the judge.  

The standard of proof at the Motion to Suppress is a "preponderance of the evidence", per Commonwealth ex rel. Butler v. Rundle.  

At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge enters on the record a statement of the findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether the evidence in the Bucks County criminal case was obtained in violation of the defendant's rights, or in violation of these rules or any statute, and shall make an order granting or denying the relief sought.