Criminal Defense Attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Diaz, holding that the fact that the defendant was on probation pursuant to an illegal anticipatory probation violation does not protect him from being found in violation again even though the existing probation is actually illegal. The Facts of Diaz In Diaz, the defendant was sentenced repeatedly for drug offenses committed between 2004 and 2022. At one point, his probation was revoked before it began. This is called an anticipatory probation revocation. It occurs when ..read more

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth. v. Ellis, holding that the trial court did not violate the defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights by ordering him to remove his non-prescription glasses during trial. The Court found that the trial court’s order did not require the defendant to testify or give evidence against himself. The Superior Court also found sufficient evidence to affirm the conviction for murder. The Facts of Ellis In Ellis, the defendant was charged with attempting to rob a gas station in Y ..read more

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. McIntyre, holding that VUFA § 6105’s prohibition on possessing a firearm after being convicted of certain prior offenses is constitutional and does not violate the Second Amendment. Despite the fact that numerous federal courts have reached the opposite conclusion, the Superior Court concluded that individuals with prior convictions for violent felonies are never among the people protected by the Second Amendment. The Facts of McIntyre The defendant was convicted of violat ..read more

Most people do not realize it, but there are many juvenile adjudications which make it a crime for an adult to possess or attempt to purchase a gun. Pennsylvania law makes it a third degree felony to knowingly and intentionally make a a false statement or omission in connection with the purchase of a firearm. Most gun purchasers will undergo a state and federal background check in connection with the purchase of a gun, and the application form is not always easy to understand. This makes ignorance of the disclosure obligations a risky proposition. If you are considering purchas ..read more

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has decided the case of United States v. Danny Cruz, holding that the breach of a specific agreement in a plea bargain by the government requires a new sentencing hearing in front of a different judge. In Cruz, the government promised to advocate that Cruz receive a specific offense level at sentencing. It then breached that promise by agreeing with the probation department that a four level enhancement for bribing a public official in a sensitive position should apply as that enhancement raised the total off ..read more

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Rosendary, holding that the police do not need a search warrant to get a parolee’s GPS monitoring data from parole agents so long as the parolee was already on GPS monitoring for reasons unrelated to the investigation of the new crime. In this case, the defendant’s GPS monitor put him at the scene of the crime, but the police had obtained that data without getting a search warrant for it. The Superior Court, however, rejected Rosendary’s arguments that the e ..read more

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Sutton, holding that the Commonwealth may introduce hearsay evidence as to what a confidential informant (“CI”) told the police at the preliminary hearing so long as the Commonwealth certifies that the CI will be available to testify at trial. This case presents two major issues: 1) the Commonwealth almost never actually calls a CI to testify at trial, and there is no mechanism in place to ensure that the Commonwealth does not simply say the CI will be availab ..read more

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire Philadelphia criminal defense lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire, obtained the full dismissal of felony charges at the preliminary hearing for a client who was charged in Bucks County with allegedly making a materially false statement on the background check application that he filled out in an attempt to buy a firearm. In the case of Commonwealth v. M.S., prosecutors alleged that M.S. went to a gun show in Bucks County to try to buy a gun and provided false information about his criminal record on the form. How does the background ..read more

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Floyd, granting the Commonwealth’s appeal and holding that the trial court erred in granting a motion to suppress drugs and guns where a Philadelphia police officer testified that he saw the defendant engage in two hand-to-hand transactions. The Court also held that the officers did not violate the defendant’s rights by driving the defendant’s car to a secure location to await the signing of a search warrant. The trial court had granted the motion to suppress ..read more

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire Philadelphia criminal defense attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire was recently published in the Pennsylvania Association of Criminal Defense Lawyer’s For the Defense Magazine. Attorney Goldstein’s article focused on the differences between the protections provided by the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions and the practical impact those differences may have on the litigation of motions to suppress and other challenges to improper seized evidence in state and federal court. Read more here. Facing criminal charges or appeali ..read more