Bucks County Criminal Defense Lawyers

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.