Statements Used at Preliminary Hearings

I went to my preliminary hearing, no district attorney was present, just the police officer. No witness appeared. The police officer started by saying that I hit another girl, but he did not see it. He said I made a full statement admitting to hitting the other girl. He gave the magistrate judge the a copy of a piece of paper that had my purported statement. The statement did not have my signature. The judge read the statement to himself; not aloud. I did not have a lawyer. The judge asked me if I had anything to say. I said that I did not make any statement and that I object to the statement. The judge then told me there was enough here to go to trial and gave me a subpoena for an arraignment in the court of common pleas.

Is the statement admissible at my preliminary hearing?

I don't think the admissibility of your statement at the preliminary hearing the real question. In fact, I don't really care about the statement much at all. The question you should be asking is whether there was enough evidence presented at the preliminary hearing for the judge to order that you proceed to trial and whether you (or your lawyer) should now file a writ of habeus corpus to quash the information/bills in the court of common pleas?

The answer is that your case should have been dismissed at the preliminary hearing and now you should file to have the bills quashed. In your case, no corpus was established at the preliminary hearing. Corpus delicti means body of the crime. In order for a case to proceed past the preliminary hearing in Pennsylvania, the commonwealth must establish that a crime occurred, i.e. the body of crime. While hearsay is admissible, there must be a showing that the declarent of the hearsay will be available to appear and testify at trial. If not, the hearsay is not allowed. If the only evidence remaining is the statement of the defendant, that cannot be used as the only evidence of a body of crime.

In your matter, there was no non-hearsay testimony from any person that you committed a crime. No testimony that the police observed you commit any crime. No testimony that the "victim" would appear for trial. No evidence of crime other then your statement. No body of crime has been established. Therefore, your case should have been dismissed at the preliminary hearing and now your case should be quashed.

Read More

Methods of Interrogation and Admissibility

I was forcibly taken by two DEA agents and a US Marshall into the rear of unmarked car in the rear of an alley. They questioned me about my involvement in a criminal enterprise. I spoke to them for about twenty minutes and told them everything I knew.

Assuming that I am later indicted, a judge finds that I was free to leave the car, and a judge finds that I was being not interrogated, can the government use anything I said in the car against me? 

I think you really have two questions. I am going to assume that the "conversation" was not being recorded and that no recording of the "conversation" is going to be used against you. If that is the case, the questions are: 1. is the statement admissible; and 2. what weight should the statement get? 

Interrogation

  If all of the assumptions above are true, most likely the statement is admissible against you. However, you should remember that you have a right to confront and cross examine the government agent testifying against you and bringing in the statement. The only people that can bring the statement in are the agents that were in the car. Your lawyer will get to cross examine the witnesses. If this case is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations)  the government has unlimited resources. The suggestion that the government was unable to tape record, video record, or at least write down your statement and have you sign it is absurd. Your lawyer should be able to really cross examine the witness on this point and suggest to the jury that the statement be given very little wait.

Read More

Bench Warrants and the Statute of Limitations

We have received this question several times and we have never posted it, but since I have seen it around now from many different folks, it must be a question that a lot in the community have, so here goes:

I got arrested in 1995 for criminal mischief as a misdemeanor in Philadelphia County. I didn't do it, so I figured, screw it. I never went to court because it was nonsense. I moved to Los Angeles. Now 15 years have passed. Is the case over? Did the statute of limitations run on the case? Can I still be prosecuted?

Unless I am missing something, you intentionally did not show up for court, so you got a bench warrant. The bench warrant tolls the statute of limitation and all of your speedy trial rights in favor of the district attorney. Of course you can still be prosecuted. In fact, if you get arrested or stopped in California by the police, they can hold you as a fugitive of justice and wait to see if Pennsylvania chooses to have you extradited--you could spend 90 days in jail waiting for Pennsylvania to come get you. You should come to Philly and have the bench warrant lifted immediately.

Read More