A little known fact in Bucks County DUI's, is that an individual can turn in their driver's license the day of ARD court, rather than wait until PennDot sends them the suspension letter.  Typically, a Bucks County criminal defense lawyer will just leave after the ARD acceptance is complete.  A defendant will receive a letter from PennDot a few weeks later telling the individual to surrender their license.  Sometimes, this is good strategy.  Sometimes, however, a person wants to start the suspension immediately.  This can be due to employment issues, spring breaks, vacations, or holidays where they rather get credit for a suspension when their driving obligations are reduced.  

If this is the case, you and your attorney should proceed to the Clerk of Courts on the third floor of the Bucks County courthouse and surrender your license there.  The clerk will give you a form that acknowledges they received your license and the Clerk will send the license along with a DL- 21a to PennDot.  

Please note -- if you are not ARD eligible, you are required to surrender your license on the day of your conviction and/or guilty plea.  

If you are appealing a decision to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, your Bucks County criminal lawyer, in filing your appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, should be mindful of deadlines.  The first filing should be the Petition for Allowance of Appeal.  This must be filed within 30 days of the order from the Superior Court or Commonwealth Court and must follow the Rules regarding the content of the Petition for Allowance of Appeal.  

The Commonwealth may (although they are not required to) file an Answer to the Petition for Allowance of Appeal.  Depending upon how your Bucks County lawyer "serves" the prosecutor, they will have 14-17 days to file an answer.  If they do not file an answer, do not assume that the prosecutors agree with your petition.  Rather the Rules of Appellate Procedure indicate that, "The failure to file an answer will not be construed as concurrence in the request for allowance of appeal."  

Then, you will have to wait to receive a certified copy of the order via first class mail notifying you whether the Supreme Court grants or denies your petition.  

Out of Court Statements in Bucks County

Hearsay has been discussed by us before.  Bucks County criminal lawyers should be very familiar with the exceptions to hearsay.  Dutton v. Evans, as Supreme Court case, stated that some out of court statements are permissable and the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause is not violated when certain declarations have a strong "indicia of reliability."  

Pennsylvania Case Law on Out of Court Statements

Commonwealth v. Coccioletti covers the exception, which includes, "A well-established exception to the hearsay rule permits the out-of-court declarations of one co-conspirator to be admitted against another co-conspirator provided that the declarations were made during the conspiracy and in furtherance of the common design."  The court must analyze how, where and why the statements were made.  This analysis will determine the "indicia of reliability" and lead to a conclusion/ruling by the court on whether the out of court statement is admissible.  

Can you pick blood or urine in a Bucks County DUI case?  I was discussing a similar case with a Quakertown DUI Lawyer and we both agreed that the law is well-settled. 

There are a multitude of cases that all say the same thing -- you do not have a choice between blood or breath.  You must agree to whatever the officer decides (or face the civil penalties of a refusal, which includes 1 year loss of license).  

The driver does not have the option of choosing the test, although he does have the right to have his own physician administer [an additional] breath, blood or urine chemical test. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Bartle, 93 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 132, 500 A.2d 525 (1985); 75 Pa. C. S. § 1547(h). This case does not violate the mandate of the Supreme Court in Department of Transportation v. McFarren, 514 Pa. 411, 525 A.2d 1185 (1987), where the court held that in order to justify a second intrusion, the police officer must establish circumstances which support its reasonableness. Here, there was no initial intrusion, so that it was unnecessary to show that the request for a blood test was reasonable. Furthermore, the request actually was reasonable since the breathalyzer test was inoperative [emphasis added].  Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Quinn, 114 Pa. Commw. 621, 623 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1988)

The Supreme Court made "the confrontation clause" important that is a primary interest secured that a defendant can cross-examine and individual testifying against them.  

As a Bucks County juvenile crimes lawyer, it is important to know that the same policy applies to a juvenile offender in Bucks County. The Supreme Court followed up in Davis. v. Alaska with respect to a juvenile, 

Petitioner's right of confrontation is paramount to the State's policy of protecting juvenile offenders, and any temporary embarrassment to Green by disclosure of his juvenile court record and probation status is outweighed by petitioner's right effectively to cross-examine a witness. 

Submitting to Two Tests

The courts have clearly decided that a blood or urine test amounts to a search and seizure. McFarren, citing Commonwealth v. Funk, 254 Pa. Superior Ct. 233, 385 A.2d 995 (1978).

A police officer with reasonable grounds to believe a licensee was operating a vehicle while under the influence initially has unfettered discretion under 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1547(a) to request the licensee to submit to one of the following types of chemical tests: breath, blood, or urine. Once the officer chooses blood or urine, however, they may not change, as in Blair v. Commonwealth.  Blair v. Commonwealth, 115 Pa. Commw. 293 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1988)

The Blair court is a well-cited and treated case regarding an officer requesting two different types of test.  

What the Court Decided

If a blood or urine test was chosen, only one of those was to be administered unless the officer established a reasonable ground for requesting a second test. Evidence revealed that the officer had no reason to believe the initial blood test would be inconclusive.

As the Court in Blair stated,

There was no testimony before the trial court that the blood test alone was an insufficient means of obtaining a determination as to whether Blair was driving under the influence of a controlled substance as well as alcohol. Evidence that both a blood and urine test were necessary to determine Blair's blood alcohol content and to detect the presence of controlled substances would have provided reasonable grounds to justify the request  for the urine test in this case. However, neither this Court nor the trial court is able to infer such a fact on our own. Therefore, we must conclude that the arresting officer did not have reasonable grounds to request that Blair submit to a urine test after he had already provided a blood sample. Accordingly, the order of the trial court denying Blair's appeal and reinstating DOT's suspension of his operating privilege is reversed.

What can be done if you are a Bucks County defendant and you are facing aggravated assault charges involving a deadly weapon (i.e. a knife)? First, you must explore justification of the force with your Bucks County criminal defense lawyer.  Or, in other words, self-defense.  

These are tough cases.  The Commonwealth's courts have a history in aggravated assault cases of not supporting a person who "aggravates" or elevates the use of force.  In Commonwealth v. Cutts from 1980, the "use of shiny instrument" capable of slashing is excessive force applied against a person who poked them with a sharp stick.  

You further can see in Commonwealth v. Jones from 1974, that the use of a pocket knife against kicking and pushing assailants was considered excessive force.  Both of these cases involved unarmed assailants.  

If, however, the use of force is "equal" to the assailant's force, you may have a good argument.  If both have knives, you can do well.  Knife vs. bat?  I would argue similar harm can occur with each.  The facts and details matter to your case so make sure you review cases with similar issues as your cas.  

In Bucks County, most guilty plea colloquys are verbal.  They are performed by the judge.  In Montgomery County, they are written.  You review a form and initial each page while signing the last page.  In Philadelphia, the colloquy can be done by the District Attorney or the judge.  

The judge will typically line up several defendants and individually address them regarding their alleged crime(s).  The judge will further discuss the elements of the crimes with individual defendants and will then address the group as a whole.  This will include asking if the group/individuals know what they are doing, have had time to speak to their Bucks criminal lawyer, understand they have a right to a trial, understand the burden is on the Commonwealth to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, and understand that they are giving up those rights by pleading guilty.  The judge will also make sure you aren't on any alcohol or drugs that would preclude your ability to enter into the plea.  The judge will further stress, pursuant to Padilla, that you have had time to speak to an immigration lawyer about your plea if you are not a U.S. citizen.  

Therefore, the colloquy does not have to be in writing.  See Commonwealth v. Yager.  Remember -- you can always take back or withdrawal your plea before sentencing (which may, however, happen immediately after the colloquy).  The judge will most likely go over the general elements of the crime(s) you are pleading to.  The judge and/or the DA will provide a factual basis (what they are alleging) to establish a conviction.  You should also review with your Bucks County criminal defense lawyer the factual basis and the potential defenses prior to entering a plea of guilty.  

You have a right to be present at every stage of your trial

The Supreme Court of the United States hold that the "most basic of rights guaranteed by the Confrontation Clause is the accused's right to be present in the courtroom at every stage of his trial." Lewis v. U.S. 146 US 370.  

The Supreme Court, however, did not make such a right absolute.  In Illinois v. Allen (397 US 337), the Court stated, "A defendant can lose his right to be present at trial if, following the judge's warning that he will be removed if his disruptive behavior continues, he nevertheless insists on conducting himself in such a disruptive manner that his trial cannot proceed if he remains in the courtroom. He can reclaim the right to be present as soon as he is willing to comport himself with decorum and respect."

Not an Absolute Right to Be Present 

The Court laid some loose ground rules and gives discretion to the trial judge to make a judgment, 

A trial judge confronted by a defendant's disruptive conduct can exercise discretion to meet the circumstances of the case, and though no single formula is best for all situations, there are at least three constitutionally permissible approaches for the court's handling of an obstreperous defendant: (1) bind and gag him as a last resort, thereby keeping him present; (2) cite him for criminal or civil contempt; or (3) remove him from the courtroom, while the trial continues, until he promises to conduct himself properly.

If you want to represent yourself, you are considered "pro se".  Going to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is a scary for anyone (including lawyers).  But, there is a handy guide written by the Supreme Court about how to represent yourself in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.  I highly recommend it.