Commonwealth v. K.B.
Mar 03, 2023OUTCOME: First-degree murder conviction vacated and withdrawn.
Obtained exoneration for man wrongfully convicted of murder due to police and prosecutorial misconduct. Client was released after 33 years in custody.
PRO
Zak Taylor Goldstein's Legal Cases (7)
Philadelphia, PA
Criminal defense Lawyer at Philadelphia, PA
Practice Areas: Criminal Defense, Violent Crime ... +3 more
Commonwealth v. Z.S.
Jan 01, 2017OUTCOME: Successful Post Conviction Relief Act Petition Vacates Thirty Year Jail Sentence
Attorney Goldstein recently obtained a new sentencing hearing for a defendant who had been sentenced to 15-30 years in jail for a direct violation of probation. The defendant was on probation for selli ... ng drugs when he was arrested and ultimately convicted of robbery. After receiving a sentence of up to 20 years for the robbery case, the probation judge sentenced the defendant to 15-30 years consecutive to the sentence for the robbery charges. This led to an overall sentence which could have kept the defendant in jail for up to 50 years despite his young age at the time of the conviction for the direct violation. After reviewing the transcripts from the violation of probation hearing, Attorney Goldstein quickly recognized that significant legal errors had occurred during the probation sentencing to which the original lawyer should have objected. Mr. Goldstein filed a Post-Conviction Relief Act Petition amending the defendant’s initial pro se filings and arguing that the defendant should receive a new probation violation sentencing because defense counsel had been ineffective at the original hearing. Criminal defendants have a constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel under both the Pennsylvania and United States constitutions, and an ineffective performance by counsel at the trial, appeal, or probation levels can lead to a new trial, appeal, sentencing, or probation hearing. In this case, defense counsel at the original violation hearing failed to object when the probation judge found on the record that the defendant’s expressions of remorse were hollow solely because the defendant refused to waive his right to an in-person probation violation hearing and allow the hearing to be conducted by video from the state prison. Further, defense counsel failed to file a motion to reconsider the sentence or appeal the excessive sentence. Attorney Goldstein argued that defendants have a constitutional right to be present for important hearings in their cases, and courts may not legally punish defendants for exercising those rights. Further, when courts rely on illegal sentencing factors such as the decision to exercise a constitutional right, the defendant is entitled to a new sentencing hearing. The Commonwealth filed a Motion to Dismiss the PCRA Petition, arguing both that the Petition was untimely because Petitioner did not formally title his pro se petition as a PCRA Petition and that original counsel was not required to object or litigate the issues on appeal in order to be effective. The Court agreed with Attorney Goldstein, denied the prosecution’s Motion to Dismiss, and granted the PCRA Petition. The court ordered that the defendant receive a new sentencing hearing which, due to the passage of time since the original sentence, will occur in front of a different judge from the one who placed the defendant on probation. Although the outcome of the new sentencing is far from guaranteed, the defense will have the opportunity to argue for something less than the original 15-30 year consecutive sentence.
Commonwealth v. P.B.
Jan 01, 2016OUTCOME: Motion to suppress granted, resulting in exclusion of significant quantities of narcotics, firearms, and money at trial. District Attorney forced to withdraw charges.
Defendant charged with Possession with Intent to Deliver and firearms offenses after police claimed to have observed drug transactions in and in front of house.
Commonwealth v. K.F.
Jan 01, 2016OUTCOME: Motion to Suppress Granted
The defendant was arrested and charged with drug charges including Possession with the Intent to Deliver, Conspiracy, and Simple Possession based on a narcotics officer’s allegation that the defendant ... engaged in four drug transactions. Prosecutors alleged that when arrested, the defendant possessed three bundles of crack cocaine and hundreds of dollars. Attorney Goldstein moved to suppress the drugs and money and argued that the police had not seen the defendant engaged in drug sales. Instead, police had arrested and searched him without probable cause immediately after he exited his house. Despite the officer’s testimony that he personally observed the defendant engage in the four drug sales, Attorney Goldstein successfully cross examined the officer on his credibility and introduced alibi testimony that showed the defendant could not have engaged in narcotics transactions. Immediately following the testimony, the trial judge granted the motion to suppress and threw out the crack cocaine and United States currency.
Commonwealth v. I.N.
Jan 01, 2014OUTCOME: Acquittal
Obtained jury verdict of not guilty on all charges in case of Aggravated Assault on police officer.
Commonwealth v. J.S.
Jan 01, 2012OUTCOME: Acquittal
Obtained not guilty verdict in a waiver trial on all charges in a Burglary case.
Commonwealth v. E.C.
N/AOUTCOME: Acquittal
Obtained jury verdict of not guilty on all charges in a Possession with Intent to Distribute case in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court.