The basis for RRRI is out of provisions of Chapter 96 issued under 44 Pa.C.S. Chapter 53.  It stands for "Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive".  The program is set up for an early release from prison, which includes not seeing the parole board. 

The program requirements include having a non-violent criminal past, no felony drug convictions, and generally no sex crime convictions.  Also, no crimes relating to section 13(a)(3)(14), or (37) of The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act (35 P. S. §  780-113(a)(14)(3) or (37)), when the sentence was imposed under 18 Pa.C.S. §  7508(a)(1)(iii), (2)(iii), (3)(iii), (4)(iii), (7)(iii) or (8)(iii) (relating to drug trafficking sentencing and penalties).

RRRI is negotiated by your Bucks County criminal lawyer prior to your court date and you agree to RRRI at your sentencing.  This negotiation occurs with the prosecutor and/or the probation office (if this is for a Violation of Probation). 

Here's the benefit of RRRI:

A judge sentencing an eligible offender to confinement in the Department generally is required to impose both a traditional minimum sentence and an RRRI minimum sentence equal to 3/4 of the minimum sentence if the traditional minimum sentence is 3 years or less and to 5/6 of the minimum sentence if the traditional minimum sentence is greater than 3 years.

The purpose is that you get your sentenced reduced and you are back in the community with presumptive parole.  Presumptive parole means that the offender will be released at the end of the minimum sentence without having to have a Pre Parole Investigation and see the parole board. 

Update:  I have had some questions on this -- The minimum a person can be released on RRRI is 18 months.  

A claim of self-defense, or justification, to use the term employed in the Crimes Code (in 18 Pa.C.S. § 505), requires evidence establishing three elements: 

• (a) that the defendant reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury and that it was necessary to use deadly force against the victim to prevent such harm; 
• (b) that the defendant was free from fault in provoking the difficulty which culminated in the slaying; and 
• (c) that the defendant did not violate any duty to retreat. 

Once justification, or self-defense or the defense of others, is raised, defendants and their Bucks County criminal defense lawyers do not have to prove that they did act in a manner justified by the circumstances, but the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has to prove they did not act in a justified manner. The Commonwealth has to disprove self-defense or other justification not merely by a preponderance of the evidence but beyond a reasonable doubt.  This is a big shift.  In common law, the burden was on the defense.  Now, it is on the prosecutor.  

The use of force is justified if the person using the force reasonably believes under all the circumstances that such force is immediately necessary to protect himself or to protect others (see 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §§ 505 & 506). 

Standard for Due Diligence

Frequently, I hear people say "I didn't receive the summons!" from the Bucks County police and/or State Troopers.  In fact, one time a client found out about a warrant through a friend and the court staff admitted the screwed up his address.  If, you think the police and state screwed up in getting the warrant and summons to you, make sure you get your Bucks County criminal defense lawyer on the case to seek a dismissal.  

The Commonwealth bears the burden, through a preponderance of the evidence, to show they exercised due diligence in getting an individual to trial.  The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has stated, "While the Commonwealth undisputedly bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that due diligence was exercised by the police in their efforts to arrest a defendant, "due diligence," as the term is used in the Rule 1100(d) context, means reasonable efforts are required, not perfect vigilance or exhaustive and constant investigation".  Commonwealth v. Branch, 337 Pa.Super. 22, 486 A.2d 460 (1984).

The court must also look at the efforts to locate an accused must be steps taken by the prosecution rather than possibly meritorious efforts not undertaken.  So, you can't have a case where every rock must be looked under.  Instead, it is what rocks were lifted by the police in attempting to locate the individual.  

Compare and Contrast

Two cases show the difference in when the Commonwealth exercises due diligence and when they don't.  

Commonwealth v. Dorsey shows a potential light of what is due diligence.  In that case, the police acted with due diligence in that they went to appellee's house five times over six months, entered appellee's name in the Pennsylvania Crime Center Computer, and distributed appellee's photograph and the court found due diligence was exercised.  The court ruled that it is not the function of the courts to second-guess the methods used by police to locate accused persons. The analysis to be employed is whether, considering the information available to the police, they have acted with diligence in attempting to locate the accused. Deference must be afforded the police officer's judgment as to which avenues of approach will be fruitful.

Commonwealth v. Collins shows when due diligence was not exercised.  Essentially, the police made no effort to use an abundance of available information in this case.  In this case, the police never contacted the defendant's probation officer, despite the probation officer knowing the defendant's address, as the court state, "Although appellant, known as "Philly Dog," had a police record and was on probation, the record reflects that no effort was made to secure information or cooperation of the probation and parole offices."  They visited some homes, but the court ruled, "A single unsuccessful visit to the homes of two relatives, followed a month and one-half later by dropping one's card at the accused's mother's residence with a request to be contacted should the accused come calling, falls far short of due diligence."  

In these two cases, you can see that the efforts of the police matter and the standard of due diligence is determined on a case-by-case basis.  

Bucks County Statute of Limitations on Misdemeanors

If you are arrested on a misdemeanor offense, the statute of limitations is 2 years according to 42 Pa.C.S.A. §5552.  Prosecution must commence within the two years.  

Please note -- it doesn't mean your trial must have started.  It means "prosecution".  So, what does "prosecution" mean for Bucks County crimes?  

Commonwealth v. Milano is a well-treated case (meaning, it has not been overruled) that explains that the filing of arrest warrants timely commences prosecution.  It does not mean having a trial.  I have had cases where a warrant is issued four days before the 2 year statute (there must be a great big calendar somewhere that tracks these issues).  But, then you have to look at Speedy Trial issues if there is a 365 day delay after the warrant has been issued.  

One interesting part of the Code of Civility, which I wrote about recently, as I have seen in many Bucks County courtrooms, is that a Bucks County criminal lawyer has a responsibility to advise their client on proper dress/attire.  The Code states, 

A lawyer should advise clients and witnesses of the proper dress and conduct expected of them when appearing in court and should, to the best of his or her ability, prevent clients and witnesses from creating disorder and disruption in the courtroom.

I cannot tell you how many times I have seen inappropriate clothing in the courtroom by defendants.  Sometimes, the judge will admonish the individual.  But, it is important for lawyers to know that there is also an expectation to advise the client.  It is sometimes assumed by lawyers and the general public, but a lawyer should definitely advise individuals.  I frequently tell people to dress as if they were going to church or a wedding.  It always helps their case if they are dressed properly which shows they take the process seriously and are respectful.  Even in juvenile cases in Bucks County some judges will remark about someone's appropriate attire.  

Case Law For Bucks County Speedy Trial

We have had a discussion about Rule 600 and the speedy trial rule in Bucks County cases.  The summary is that if the Commonwealth (i.e. the prosecutors) did not follow-up on the case appropriately, then the matter can be dismissed.  

An important case for a Bucks County criminal lawyer to be aware of is Commonwealth v. Kearse, 2005 PA Super 410 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005).

Here's the relevant portion of the case [emphasis added],

It was clear that defendant was brought to trial after expiration of the Rule 600 time period, so the question became whether the Commonwealth had acted with due diligence in bringing him to trial. The correct standard looked to whether the Commonwealth had shown due diligence throughout the period the prosecution was pending. Although it was not defendant's fault that his co-defendant's counsel failed to show up several times, necessitating delays in holding a preliminary hearing, it was not the Commonwealth's fault either. Furthermore, the Commonwealth was not under any duty to seek severance of defendants in order to eliminate delays. Finally, any error the trial court might have committed in looking to whether defendant had been prejudiced by the delay was harmless. The balancing test the trial court had applied in determining absence of prejudice was entirely irrelevant where the speedy trial claim was based on Rule 600 rather than on constitutional rules.

The court further delineated that the standard the Commonwealth has to overcome is a "preponderance of the evidence".  But, the court continued,

When evaluating Pa. R. Crim. P. 600, there need be no discussion of whether a defendant is prejudiced because prejudice is shown simply by proving that the defendant suffered 365 days of non-excludable pretrial delay under facts showing that the Commonwealth did not exercise due diligence. Instead, a prejudice analysis is proper when evaluating whether the delay violated the defendant's right to a speedy trial guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and by Pa. Const. art. I, § 9. In that instance, the following test is implemented (1) whether the delay itself was sufficiently long to be presumptively prejudicial; and, if so, (2) whether the delay is justified under the balancing test of Barker v. Wingo. The balancing test analyzes four factors: the length of the delay; the reason for the delay; the defendant's assertion of the right to a speedy trial; and, any prejudice to the defendant arising from the delay.

Supreme Court Case Law

As a balancing test, the Court adopted four factors to be considered in determining, on a case-by-case basis, whether a defendant has been prejudiced by the lack of a speedy trial:

1. the length of delay,
2. the reason for the delay,
3. the time and manner in which the defendant has asserted his right, and
4. the degree of prejudice to the defendant which the delay has caused.

Taping of Police in Bucks County

The Department of Justice in a Statement of Interest stated that it is legal to film police.  As the ACLU states, 

Taking photographs and video of things that are plainly visible in public spaces is a constitutional right — and that includes the outside of federal buildings, as well as transportation facilities, and police and other government officials carrying out their duties.

Tips in Filming

Like I said, the first rule is "don't be a jerk".  YouTube is full of videos of cocky guys filming police and looking for a confrontation. So, with all that being said, here's a quick list from a Bucks County criminal lawyer about filming police.  

• First, empathize with a police officer's job.  They put themselves in harm's way everyday they work.  No other job (other than the military in the Middle East) faces similar risks every single day.  
• Don't interfere with police operations.  Police have every right to stop you from filming if you are interfering.  
• If you are on private property, you are subject to the property owner's rules regarding filming.  
• If you are in a public place, film away.  
• Don't be tricked by anyone that you must delete and film/photos.  You do not have to.  
• Again, just be a decent human being while protecting your rights.  Be polite. Don't be a jerk.  

I may have jumped the gun in my post about expert witnesses by not first tackling the rule.  Rule 702 states:

 A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:

 (a)  the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge is beyond that possessed by the average layperson;

 (b)  the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; and

 (c)  the expert’s methodology is generally accepted in the relevant field.

• An expert need not testify with absolute certainty or rule out all possible alternative causes
• Expert testimony is admissible when, taken in its entirety, it expresses reasonable certainty that the event was a substantial factor in bringing about the harm
• That an expert may, at some point during his testimony, qualify the assertion does not necessarily render the opinion inadmissibly speculative

Our sister city here in Bucks County has a colorful history of alleged organized crime.  The papers have written about the "decline" of organized mafia crime over the years with colorful figures reaching an elderly age or being incarcerated.  Yet, the fixation continues.  

Yesterday, George Borgesi, the Philadelphia mob's former consigliere, was acquitted of racketeering conspiracy.  This is the second time prosecutors failed to reach a conviction.  

There is still the federal trial of Nicodemo Scarfo and associates.  My look at the case is that it is not only flimsy, but the prosecution is trying to rest upon reputed mafia ties of the defendants to obtain a conviction.  By all accounts, the case has nothing to do with "organized crime" or a "mafia".  It has a big name in the mix, but that does not mean this is a "mob case".  So far, as the case just starts, the most interesting part was that George Anastasia, the famous reporter and radio host who covers crime in Philadelphia, was put on the witness list and is potentially barred from the courtroom (for sequestration purposes):

An interesting legal question arose before the trial started when Pelullo's attorney asked that George Anastasia, present to cover the case for the website BigTrial.net, be barred from openings and testimony because he is on the witness list.

Anastasia, who covered the mob extensively for The Inquirer and has also written about the FirstPlus case, said he had no idea what testimony he would be asked to provide.

Anastasia said he was considering filing a complaint should the motion be granted, because prohibiting him from the courtroom would also prevent him from doing his job writing about the case.  

Bucks County Defense to Criminal Attempt

We have previously discussed how "impossibility" is not a defense to criminal attempt and how a "substantial step" is required for the prosecution to prove criminal attempt.  But, what happens if you decide that the entire idea is bad and you "quit"  ?  

18 Pa.C.S. § 901 (c) states, 

(c)  Renunciation. 

   (1) In any prosecution for an attempt to commit a crime, it is a defense that, under circumstances manifesting a voluntary and complete renunciation of his criminal intent, the defendant avoided the commission of the crime attempted by abandoning his criminal effort and, if the mere abandonment was insufficient to accomplish such avoidance, by taking further and affirmative steps which prevented the commission thereof.
   (2) A renunciation is not "voluntary and complete" within the meaning of this subsection if it is motivated in whole or part by:
      (i) a belief that circumstances exist which increase the probability of detection or apprehension of the defendant or another participant in the criminal enterprise, or which render more difficult the accomplishment of the criminal purpose; or
      (ii) a decision to postpone the criminal conduct until another time or to transfer the criminal effort to another victim or another but similar objective.

Thoughts on Renunciation