James Law

An Armstrong County judge granted our motion to dismiss two high-grade misdemeanor counts filed for endangering the welfare of children. Previously, a felony-grade count was dismissed months prior in this same case at the magistrate level. The result alleviates the client of having to proceed to trial. ***Past results afford no guarantee of future results. All cases are different and must be judged on the merits of each case.***

I posted this blog on June 4th about the Superior Court's recent decision in Chichkin. I explained my personal belief that the holding of Chichkin bore only on mandatory-minimum DUI penalties--not DUI grading. I suggested practitioners may want to take the additional step to now challenge DUI grading based upon the reasoning in Chichkin and Apprendi. Recently, I came across this gem from the Superior Court's decision in Nellom, which was issued on June 10. This footnote ex...cerpt may help in advancing the issue about DUI grading influenced by prior ARDs. "In Apprendi, the United States Supreme Court held: Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 530 U.S. at 490. See also Commonwealth v. Panko, 975 A.2d 1189, 1191 (Pa. Super. 2009) (citing Apprendi and noting that 'a fact that increases the maximum penalty or changes the grade of an offense must be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt.')." Comm. v. Nellom, 2020 PA Super 139, *15 n.7 (June 10, 2020).

FIRM NEWS: On Friday, our office received a 12-page opinion and Order out of Westmoreland County, which suppressed all evidence stemming from a traffic stop that resulted in the filing of drug charges against our client. The court held that statements taken from the client were taken in violation of Miranda, and evidence retrieved from their wallet was without either reasonable suspicion or probable cause. ***Past results afford no guarantee of future results. All cases are different and must be judged on the merits of each case.***

Interesting opinion out of the Superior Court regarding protective sweeps of vehicles. The opinion was 2-1, which reversed the trial court's denial of suppression.

FIRM NEWS: Felony drug charges dismissed following a preliminary hearing in City Court today. This was an unfortunate circumstance of being linked to drugs due to mere presence in the same place--no connection otherwise. ***Past results afford no guarantee of future results. All cases are different and must be judged on the merits of each case.***

Do not withhold good from those to whom you should give it if it is within your power to help__Proverbs 3:27 I haven't been able to quiet the thoughts in my head since the murder of George Floyd. In fact, this particular proverb keeps resonating with me. I desire a just society. I desire for communities of color--but particularly the black community--that "equal justice under law" be a phrase of truth and meaning, finally. I desire these things not only because they're rig...ht, but because I also desire a better life for my own children whose futures are inextricably tied to the futures of their friends who will not look like them. I'm obligated (we're all obligated) to leave this world better for the generations to follow. So for me, as it's within my power to help, I will do so. JFK certainly said it best in my opinion: "For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal._JFK #BlackLivesMatter #BlackFuturesMatter #OurFuturesMatter #CivilRights #CivilActions

Two weeks ago the Superior Court handed down its decision in Commonwealth v. Chichkin, which addressed the application of mandatory-minimum penalties in the DUI law that are informed by the prior acceptance of ARD--a popular first-time-DUI-offender program. The Chichkin decision has been a popular topic of discussion among regular DUI practitioners, and it's created some waves, which has prompted my fellow practitioners to ask for my take on Chichkin from the perspective of an appellate attorney. This blog post is in response to that inquiry.

FIRM NEWS: The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, in a unanimous 7-0 opinion, held that the General Assembly's most recent iteration of Megan's Law (that is the sex-offender registry) is an unconstitutional ex post facto law as applied to my client, and accordingly ordered that the Pennsylvania State Police remove the client from the registry. The key factor that the Court kept coming back to in its 58-page opinion, which is attached, was that the client had no fair notice ...of Megan's Law's requirements because the commission of the crimes and convictions happened before Megan's Law ever existed. ***Past results afford no guarantee of future results. All cases are different and must be judged on the merits of each case.***

The Superior Court grants a new trial in this appeal out of Clarion County. A father was convicted by a jury of endangering the welfare of children for gating his minor child in their room (using two baby gates) to prevent the child from getting out in the middle of the night. The trial evidence otherwise was that the home was not in disarray and the child was not malnourished. At trial the father sought a jury instruction that would've instructed the jury on parental just...ification of employing "force" toward the minor for their protection. The trial judge disagreed that putting up baby gates fell under the definition of what "force" meant under the law, thus the judge denied this important instruction. The father, therefore, was ultimately given a sentence of 9 months to 2 years less a day. While the Superior Court held that the jury instruction should've been given, and the act of putting up baby gates met the plain meaning of the definition of "force," the reality here is that the father spent from roughly April 2019 to December 20, 2019 incarcerated as this appeal played out from its filing date of May 9, 2019. The father completed the minimum of his sentence while his position was finally vindicated. The docket reveals that his counsel made application for bail pending appeal, seemingly both in the trial court and the Superior Court, but that was denied. I, of course, don't have all of the facts that these judges had to deny bail, but I find this case to be an interesting case study in the unfortunate consequences of not adhering to the policy preferences of our established rules of procedure. In situations such as this, those rules provide as follows: "(1) When the sentence imposed includes imprisonment of less than 2 years, the defendant shall have the same right to bail as before verdict, unless the judge, pursuant to paragraph (D), modifies the bail order." Pa. R. Crim. P. 521(B)(1). So while this father received a new trial, and he's again presumed innocent, he's already served the minimum of his prior sentence. For these reasons, this case teaches a lot.

FIRM NEWS: Westmoreland County judge grants client's Motion to Suppress in felony drug case. Client challenged the police officer's stop of the vehicle he was a passenger in on the grounds that there was neither probable cause nor reasonable suspicion to do so. Following a hearing on the matter in January and the filing of briefs, the trial judge agreed with our position. Government's evidence was suppressed. (The other passengers may also benefit by this ruling notwithst...anding their failure to also seek suppression.) ***Past results afford no guarantee of future results. All cases are different and must be judged on the merits of each case.***

Sage advice from Justice Wecht to trial lawyers, particularly those who don't also handle appeals: "[A]n attorney representing a client is obligated to invest some thought into the future progression of the case. To succeed on appeal, counsel is obligated to take affirmative steps to build a record. This is so even where counsel does not believe that a timely objection will remedy the challenged conduct. But even if counsel is certain that the court will overrule the objectio...n, the objection is not futile. Rather, an overruled objection becomes the basis of an appeal. One cannot succeed on appeal by wasting the opportunity to preserve an issue at trial. Even before trial, counsel must anticipate appellate issues and exercise forethought, laying the groundwork for appeal." This case was out of Allegheny County: Trigg v. Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh UPMC. It's a worthwhile read for Allegheny County practitioners who frequently try cases in the Civil Division.

These times pose interesting and difficult questions. The answers may not be clear, but this firm's resolve to tackle those difficult questions is.

Still out there working for clients during these uncertain times. Heading to federal court as we speak.

FYI re: access to courts during this time. Just came down from PA Supreme Court.

How Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas is addressing COVID-19 through April 14th.

FIRM NEWS: Last week we had the privilege to argue before an en banc bench of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. The argument was part of our client’s suit against the PA State Police (PSP), which sought relief from PSP’s continued application of the sex-offender registry against them. We had argued doing so violates the state constitution’s ex post facto clause. PCN will be replaying the oral argument at midnight and 9 pm tomorrow.

FIRM NEWS: Following a stipulated non-jury trial, an Allegheny County judge finds the firm's client NOT GUILTY of all charges, which included a felony count of strangulation and misdemeanor counts of simple assault and endangering the welfare of children. ***Past results afford no guarantee of future results. All cases are different and must be judged on the merits of each case.***

Summaries of the Pa. Supreme Court's October criminal-case opinions. Also, in Comm. v. Haines, 2019 PA Super 329 (Oct. 30, 2019), the Superior Court held that In re J.B., 107 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2014), "should apply with equal weight to juvenile adjudications as well as to defendants convicted as adults for crimes committed as juveniles." (In re JB was a holding that rendered sex-offender registration unconstitutional for juveniles. In Haines, Haines was charged and convicted as an adult for things she did 10 years prior when she was a juvenile. She challenged her registration under In re JB, and the Superior Court agreed that she shouldn't be required to register as a sex-offender.)

Yesterday's decision in Moore is bold, holding that the Internet dissemination provision of SORNA is unconstitutional. But I suspect it's short-lived. Read why.

Just pulled the Superior Court's opinion from today. Comm. v. Moore, 2019 PA Super 320. Held: Pennsylvania State Police dissemination via the Internet the registration information about sex offenders, violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution. (Reading the opinion as we speak.)

Lots of developments regarding fines, restitution, and court costs recently. This post breaks down those developments.

This post discusses Brogdon, which is an application of the collective-knowledge doctrine that the Pa. Supreme Court spoke to last year in Yong, 177 A.3d 876; and it discusses Kerns, which is a case I believe that holds, for the first time, that motions to enforce plea agreements may exist outside the umbrella of the PCRA, which is supposed to be the sole means of collateral relief in Pennsylvania. The Superior Court issued an opinion in Williams, 2019 PA Super 301, which was a PCRA appeal, and that opinion is interesting for the court's holding that equates work release with probation insofar both are deemed "non-final criminal dispositions."

Select, important opinions to round out September for the Superior Court. Most notably, defense counsel may be sad to hear that the plain-smell doctrine is still with us, and the odor of marijuana may still establish probable cause, notwithstanding the favorable trial court opinion from out East that held to the contrary. The case is Comm. v. Batista.

Supreme Court issued four criminal opinions in September. A blog post summarizing those opinions follows. A note for practitioners. The Bishop case presented the question of whether, under the Pa. Constitution, a violation of Miranda warrants the suppression of any physical fruits derived as a result of the violation. The question remains open since the Supreme Court disposed of Bishop on waiver grounds. (I'm presently litigating this issue in the trial court right now.)

Some interesting opinions out of the Superior Court in the past week involving DA Krasner's administration and the mandatory minimum under 18 Pa.C.S. 6111(h). Also, in this post is another allocatur grant out of the Pa. Supreme Court.

Recent post on cases out of the Pa. Supreme Court. Moving forward, it's my intention to also highlight the High Court's allocatur grants in criminal cases. In terms of recent Superior Court opinions of interest I note a few: 1. Comm. v. Veazquez, 2019 PA Super 243 (Aug. 15, 2019): PCRA appeal where counsel was held ineffective for his affirmative misadvice about the deportation consequences of pleading guilty to a simple assault under 18 Pa.C.S. 2701(a)(3).... 2. Comm. v. Broitman, 2019 PA Super 247 (Aug. 19, 2019): affirming trial court's denial of late continuance request by defendant to obtain new counsel. 3. Comm. v. Miller, 2019 PA Super 261 (Aug. 23, 2019): aggravated assault conviction upheld under facts where defendant pointed gun at victim's head and made threats to kill. 4. Comm. v. Kennedy, 2019 PA Super 263 (Aug. 27, 2019): affirmance of trial court's grant of a mistrial sua sponte related to the actions of a potential witness of defendant's, who engaged in intimidating acts in front of jurors exiting elevator. (Interesting procedural issue discussed in concurrence by Judge Olson.)

Two Superior Court cases of note that rounded off the court's published criminal opinions for July.

Summaries of Pa. Supreme Court decisions from May to July. A few are left out. I leave a note at the end on the Hicks decision from May. From my read of that opinion, I see an invitation from the High Court to bring a case challenging Terry frisks on grounds that perhaps there's seldom sufficient articulable facts of "dangerousness" to justify a frisk. Something for practitioners to keep in their back pocket.

Two new summaries of Superior Court caselaw.

FIRM NEWS: At the beginning of the year, the Commonwealth conceded that our client was entitled to a new trial following a bench trial that resulted in a 4th-DUI conviction. We picked a jury on this case 3 weeks ago, and that jury was dismissed due to the government's lead witness being unavailable. We proceeded to court today ready to pick another jury, and the government nolle prossed (dismissed) the case due to evidentiary issues. From our perspective, this case is a stu...dy in what can result when the jury right is preserved and evidentiary stipulations are not conceded so willingly. ***Past results afford no guarantee of future results. All cases are different and must be judged on the merits of each case.***

Recent opinions out of the Superior Court touching on the Rape Shield Law and Double Jeopardy. Practitioners should be mindful of the Ramsey case because it's becoming practice, at least in Allegheny, for prosecutors to double up charges where there's outwardly a singular controlled substance containing mixtures of other substances, such as heroin and fentanyl. Shout out to the Allegheny County Public Defender's Office, and PD Stephanie Noel particularly, who argued the Ramsey case.

June's Superior Court opinions provided some interesting reads, but I found these two cases to be the most interesting.

Finally got the blog function working again. These two opinion summaries wrap up interesting reads from May opinions issued out of the Superior Court. Stay tuned for June summaries.

The U.S. Supreme Court just handed down its opinion in Mitchell v. Wisconsin. Still analyzing the opinion, but the gist of the holding is this, which is important for DUI practitioners to be aware of: When a drunk-driving suspect is "unconscious," the rule in Schmerber controls: a warrantless blood draw is permitted as an exigency. (This is interesting because the exigency argument was not advanced by the State below (i.e. it was waived), and the Supreme Court didn't decide whether, in fact, an exigency was present in Mitchell, but remanded to the lower court on that question. However, given the Court's analysis, the writing is on the wall for the lower court to decide.)

The link below is of the 2018 Report from the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, highlighting its caseload statistics. A few points of interest: 1. The Superior Court remains a busy appellate court, handling yet again roughly 8,000 appeals per year. 2. The Superior Court only "published" opinions (set precedent) in 6% of all criminal appeals.... 3. Criminal cases accounted for 45% of the Superior Court's filed decisions; civil cases accounted for 22%. The other 33% of the court's docket was disposed of by Order or Discontinuance. 4.Filed decisions per judge was averaging about 264/year. 5.The Superior Court affirmed (or upheld) the lower court 78% of the time. 6.The Supreme Court granted only 2% of the appeals taken from the Superior Court. That is 51 of 1,710 Petitions for Allowance of Appeal, which were filed.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court invalidates the longstanding Robinson rule in Pennsylvania, which essentially permitted police officers to stop and frisk a person, alleged or observed to be carrying a firearm, to verify whether they were "lawfully" carrying a firearm. Our supreme court criticizes the Robinson rule as misguided and a departure from Terry v. Ohio--a foundational Fourth Amendment case--which only permits a stop and frisk if there is "reasonable suspicion of criminal... activity" and reason to believe the person is "armed and dangerous." Merely possessing and carrying a firearm concealed doesn't equate with "reasonable suspicion of criminal activity," as hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians lawfully carry concealed firearms everyday. This supreme court certainly has not been afraid to make some waves in the law.

Two recent opinions out of the Superior Court that were interesting reads. First was Comm. v. Dante Jordan, 2019 PA Super 173. Jordan had been convicted of conspiracy and attempted homicide, among other crimes, and sentenced to 37.5 to 100 years, but the Superior Court granted him a new trial due to a structural error in the proceedings: his parents were barred from jury voir dire. Opining on the Sixth Amendment right to a trial that is open to the public, the Superior Court...Continue reading

Happy Memorial Day weekend! Celebrate responsibly. For practitioners: for those who retain your services Tuesday who did not celebrate responsibly, be mindful that the Superior Court on May 20th breathed some new life into using the DL-26 form as a suppression tool. In a case out of Chester, the Superior Court reversed an order denying suppression, reasoning that the motorist "did not make a knowing and conscious choice of whether to submit to [a] blood draw" because the po...lice had not conveyed the information required on the DL-26 form. There was some question after Birchfield of what exactly law enforcement needed to convey under 75 Pa.C.S. 1547, and whether refusal to read the DL-26 form necessitated suppression as a matter of course, but I think this opinion makes clear the mandatory, statutory obligation to read the DL-26 verbatim or else suppression will follow. The Superior Court's opinion was issued in Comm. v. Krenzel, 2019 PA Super 159 (May 20, 2019). It's a unanimous opinion by OLSON, DUBOW, and former justice STEVENS.

FIRM NEWS: For the past year and a half our firm has been defending a criminal action alleging counts of theft (F2) and misapplication of entrusted funds (M2) against an agent under a Power of Attorney. The scope of the theft that the government alleged was in excess of $250,000. Earlier this week, an Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas judge granted our Motion to Suppress, which took issue with the way in which the government's investigation was undertaken. We had argued... that the client's Fourth Amendment rights had been violated. Accordingly, with the suppression of evidence the government dismissed all charges. Attorney James defended this case with the invaluable assistance of co-counsel, attorney Marco Attisano. ***Past results afford no guarantee of future results. All cases are different and must be judged on the merits of each case.***

For PCRA practitioners: The Superior Court's decision in Comm. v. Medina, 2019 PA Super 119 (Apr. 17, 2019), highlights the importance of specificity when pleading an IAC based on the failure to call character witnesses at trial. In Medina, counsel had attached affidavits from four people who claimed to be ready and willing to testify at trial "as to [Medina's] appropriate character." These four witnesses were from Philadelphia (where the case was tried), the Bronx, the D.C.... area, and Orlando. In affirming the denial of a PCRA hearing on this issue, the Superior Court reasoned this way: "In the current appeal, the affidavits from alleged character witnesses that were attached to Appellant's amended PCRA petition do not list what character trait the witnesses would be testifying about. Therefore, the proposed testimony would not comply with the requirement of Pa.R.E. 404(a)(2)(A) that only evidence of a "defendant's pertinent trait" may be admitted as character evidence. Additionally, none of the affidavits refer to the potential character witnesses' ability to testify to Appellant's reputation; only reputation evidence may be used to prove character, not the individual's opinion of the Appellant's character. Also, only one of the affiants lives in Philadelphia; the other three live in other states. Thus, only one could testify 'as to the community opinion' of Appellant." Based on this opinion, PCRA counsel would be wise to be specific in their witness affidavits as to 1) what particular character trait is being testified to, and 2) that the character witness is testifying to the reputation of the defendant from a relevant community. I'm of the opinion that anything less will be fatal to a PCRA alleging counsel's missteps as to character witnesses.

The hiatus on Superior Court summaries is over. Today, the Superior Court issued two published opinions of interest. The first was Comm. v. Danzey out of Dauphin County. The case dealt with the authentication of Facebook posts in a trial on charges of stalking and harassment. The case is significant because it is distinguishable from the Mangel case, issued last year, which made a lot of waves on the issue of authentication. Thus, Danzey, in conjunction with Mangel, is a ...good primer for trial attorneys on what is needed to properly authenticate documents for trial. The second published case was Comm. v. Kane out of Delaware County. The case is about a "peeping Tom," who left his cell phone in one of Villanova's dorms to record students. A student came across the phone, turned it into authorities, and the authorities searched it, which led them to the defendant. At trial, the defendant attempted to argue that his phone was illegally searched and he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the phone. The Superior Court disagreed. They said that the defendant essentially abandoned the phone, thus loosing any legitimate privacy interest in the phone that society would recognize as being reasonable.

FIRM NEWS: After an hour and a half of deliberations, a Greene County jury returned a verdict of "Not Guilty," across the board, on all twelve of our client's charges alleging various, felony-1, sex crimes. ***Past results afford no guarantee of future results. All cases are different and must be judged on the merits of each case.***

FIRM NEWS: Yesterday was a rarity. Our firm had been appointed as post-conviction counsel in a fourth DUI case, where the client went to trial and was convicted and sentenced to a year in jail. We made argument that the client's conviction and sentence was the result of ineffective assistance of counsel, and the Commonwealth, in its reply, was "compelled to agree," telling the court that a new trial was warranted. In the adversarial system, the prosecution and the defense s...eldom agree with one another on points such as this. That's what makes this case a rarity. But this case highlights the importance of the prosecutorial role, as a minister of justice and a representative for all of the people of the Commonwealth, which includes the defendant. What's right is right. We'll look forward to moving this case forward toward a new trial on behalf of our client. ***Past results afford no guarantee of future results. All cases are different and must be judged on the merits of each case.***

And that's it folks: every published criminal opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court and Pennsylvania's appellate courts for 2018. I read every one of these opinions so I'm current on the law, the most informed person in the room, and so I can provide the best representation for my clients.

PA Supreme Court decisions from October.

New Year with a new look for our website. The goal was to streamline the information, speak plainly to the audience, and have more a conversational tone. Hope we accomplished those goals.

Recently, the Superior Court issued an en banc opinion, which reversed a suppression order. The trial court had suppressed evidence from a stop that the Trooper justified on grounds that the driver was frequently crossing the fog line. The trooper's dash cam, however, refuted that version of events. The Majority of the Superior Court reversed the suppression order because the trooper testified that the driver was going 70 MPH in a 55 MPH zone, and that was an alternative ba...sis for the stop. There was a question over whether the trial court credit that testimony, however. Why the opinion is interesting is because in a footnote in her dissent, Judge Lazarus notes what every criminal practitioner recognizes. She wrote: "It is occasionally the case that a judge just does not believe a police officer." Personally, I think the use of the word "occasionally"is pretty generous. Rather, it is "rarely" the case that judge just does not believe a police officer. This snippet from the dissenting opinion, however, may be beneficial for defense counsel when trying to persuade the court to break the mold, so to speak. Credibility determinations shouldn't be credited to a witness just because of their position in life. The case was Commonwealth v. Travelle Johnson, 2019 PA Super 1 (Jan. 3, 2019). 5-4 decision.

FIRM NEWS: It's a good-news day here at James Law, ending the year on high notes. First, following a bench trial last week in the Westmoreland County Court of Common Pleas, the firm's client was found NOT GUILTY of DUI charges. We tried three cases this year, including two jury trials, all resulting in Not Guilty verdicts. ... Second, for the second year in a row, the firm is proud to announce Attorney James's selection to the 2019 Pennsylvania #RisingStars list for criminal defense! This is an exclusive list, recognizing no more than 2.5 percent of attorneys in Pennsylvania. ***Past results afford no guarantee of future results. All cases are different and must be judged on the merits of each case.***

Back at it! Pa. Supreme Court opinions from September. Three of the Court's five criminal opinions in September arose in the post-conviction setting. One opinion was by an equally divided court, which garnered no precedential value, so it's not summarized here. Our personal favorite of the bunch was the Ireland case. There, the supreme court said there must be a statute to authorize the forfeiture of "derivative contraband." There's no common-law basis for such forfe...iture. This case marks yet another case where the High Court's shown a willingness to part with deep-rooted court practices that have no statutory backing.

Our argument before an en banc panel of the Superior Court is being featured on PCN tonight at 8:30.

FIRM NEWS: We're particularly proud of this honor. The National Trial Lawyers: Top 40 under 40 is a professional organization comprised of America’s top young trial attorneys. Membership into The National Trial Lawyers: Top 40 under 40 is by invitation only, and is extended exclusively to those individuals who meet stringent qualifications and focus in the legal practice of criminal defense or civil plaintiff. ... This recognition is specific to Pennsylvania and is not national in scope.

FIRM NEWS: It took three years to get there, but yesterday in Harrisburg our client appeared before the Board of Pardons. The Board, which consisted of Lt. Governor Stack and AG Shapiro, voted 5-0 to recommend our client to Governor Wolf for a full pardon. It was both a proud moment for our client and our firm. ***Past results afford no guarantee of future results. All cases are different and must be judged on the merits of each case.***

FIRM NEWS: NOT GUILTY! That's the verdict of an Allegheny County jury for our client who was charged with a count of possession of a controlled substance and tampering with evidence. ***Past results afford no guarantee of future results. All cases are different and must be judged on the merits of each case.***

FIRM NEWS: Following a preliminary hearing, our client's felony drug charges were dismissed by an Allegheny County magistrate for lack of sufficient evidence to show an intent to deliver. A misdemeanor tampering-with-evidence charge was also dismissed. In light of that decision, the Commonwealth opted to withdraw the complaint though a single misdemeanor count had been held over for court. ***Past results afford no guarantee of future results. All cases are different and must be judged on the merits of each case.***

FIRM NEWS: The Superior Court, today, unanimously reversed the trial court's decision that originally denied the firm's client a new trial. The crux of this case turned on the competing views of the trial court's interpretation of what makes a marked police car "marked" versus our view of the matter. The resolution of that question was important for purposes of whether a statutory defense was available to the client. In the end, the Superior Court agreed with our interpreta...tion on the matter answering what was an issue of first impression in Pennsylvania. The case was remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing. Judge Bowes authored a partial dissent in that regard, suggesting that the client was entitled to a new trial without the need of a hearing. The Court’s opinions are attached. ***Past results afford no guarantee of future results. All cases are different and must be judged on the merits of each case.***

"Development and presentation of cogent arguments advocating adherence to, or divergence from, precedent lie at the core of the skill set for which people pay lawyers."__Justice David Wecht (Freilich v. Southeastern Pa. Transp. Auth., 70 EM 2018, (Pa., Aug. 14, 2018).

Superior Court says that SORNA registration periods are not tied to statutory maximum periods of incarceration.

Sometimes the complete story doesn't make for a good story for the defendant.

A known informant is good; a known informant who implicates himself in a crime is better.

And we're caught up! This post summarizes the seven published opinions to be released so far this month by the Superior Court. I find the Montgomery and Jones cases to be most interesting.

If you're a criminal-defense attorney, the Chambers case should be mandatory reading. Given the current make-up of this Supreme Court and the sentiments expressed in Chief Justice Saylor’s concurrence, every criminal-defense practitioner, from here on out, should be challenging criminal convictions that result solely as the result of Pinkerton liability. The failure to do so may very well be ineffective assistance.

And that's it for June's opinions. So far this month, the Superior Court has published seven criminal-related opinions, and, today, the Supreme Court dropped about four published opinions. Stay tuned . . .

Rounding off June's opinions (almost) . My favorite of the bunch is the Milburn case, where the defendant was apprehended based upon the use of the "Find My iPhone" App. Pro Tip for robbers: don't steal another person's iPhone.

FIRM NEWS: The Superior Court today unanimously affirmed a civil judgment, which our firm obtained on behalf of our clients last year following a four-day bench trial. The panel of the court issued this memorandum opinion less than 40 days after oral argument. ***Past results afford no guarantee of future results. All cases are different and must be judged on the merits of each case.***

FIRM NEWS: Two separate clients, two separate complaints, dismissed following preliminary hearings today. One case involved allegations of unlawful restraint and assault. ***Past results afford no guarantee of future results. All cases are different and must be judged on the merits of each case.***

FIRM NEWS: Prostitution charges were dropped against firm's client. We had contended from the preliminary hearing that our client was the victim of human trafficking, not the perpetrator of her own victimization. Our view of the case gained traction with the District Attorney's office, who appropriately dismissed the case on the day of trial. A right and just result! ***Past results afford no guarantee of future results. All cases are different and must be judged on the merits of each case.***