Absolutely. If the government fails to show it has probable cause to keep the charges going forward, they can be dismissed. The Government has a low burden at preliminary hearing, so it is pretty unlikely to win at prelim. If you lose your preliminary hearing, don't be too concerned. The government will have to prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt at trial; this is a much higher standard.
A case can be dismissed at the preliminary hearing. The defendant needs an experienced criminal defense attorney to aggressively attack the Commonwealth's case. There are issues concerning the search and seizure that also need to be explorers. It is suggested that no more information be posted that the focus be on securing the right attorney.
A case can be dismissed in Philadelphia at the preliminary hearing. Hire a good criminal defense attorney to represent you, he/she can explain to you in greater depth how the case can be dismissed.
Michael Kotik, Esq.
Two Penn Center (Philadelphia)
1500 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 220
Philadelphia, PA 19102
267-265-4553 (Direct 24/7 Line)
Answers are not of fact, but rather the opinion of the attorney answering the questions asked. At no time does this answer create an attorney-client relationship. To the extent that these answers may become available to the general public there is no confidentiality as it pertains to this answer or question. The law changes frequently, and the material on this website is for general information purposes only and neither constitutes nor is intended to be legal advice. Prior to acting based upon this general information you SHOULD seek legal counsel regarding your specific legal matter. The outcome of every case is dependent on the specific facts and legal circumstances of each individual case. This website is not an offer to represent you, which can only be made after a consultation with one of the attorneys from Legalphilly.com. The Lawyer answering this question does not intend to practice in any other jurisdictions where it is not licensed. Attorney is Licensed in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The firm does not seek to represent anyone viewing this website in other jurisdictions, and the website may not comply with the laws and ethical rules of states other than Pennsylvania and New Jersey. If you have any questions please contact my office at 215-564-1010. Lawyer Michael Kotik | www.LegalPhilly.com | 1500 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 220. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19102
Having a case dismissed at the conclusion of a preliminary hearing is a possible outcome, but it is highly unlikely due to the very low burden required of the Commonwealth at that stage. Having a good attorney who is experienced in handling drug cases to prepare for and conduct the cross-examination of Commonwealth witnesses at the prelim is very, very important. Good luck.
It can be, but the standard for holding it over for trial is very low. As a result, it is important to realize that success at a preliminary hearing should not be measured by solely by whether charges are thrown out. There are many cases in which no charges are thrown out, but the answers given make it much more likely that you will succeed at trial.
Michael L. Doyle
This is not intended as individual legal advice and there is no attorney client relationship established by this answer. It is advisable that you seek individualized legal assistance. This is not a substitute for hiring an attorney.
A case most certainly be discharged at a preliminary hearing, however, you can also be re-arrested and re-charged. The purpose of the preliminary hearing is to test the sufficiency of evidence gathered by the Commonwealth; a Magistrate of District judge must decide whether or not the Commonwealth has enough evidence to make a prima facie case. Essentially, the Court must find: 1) that a crime has been committed, and 2) the defendant has probably committed it. If the Commonwealth fails to satisfy that test (i.e. demonstrating that a crime has occurred and the accused probably did it), then the defendant must be discharged. Pa. R. Crim. P 543. The Commonwealth’s burden of proof at the preliminary hearing is not as stringent as it would be at trial; the Commonwealth need not prove the elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, although it must nevertheless furnish evidence to support the existence of each and every element of that crime. Com. v. Kelley, 664 A.2d 123, 126-27 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995). While not ordinarily admissible at trial, hearsay evidence is allowed at the preliminary hearing and the Commonwealth may offer it to meet its burden of establishing prima facie case. Note, however, if hearsay testimony is the only basis for establishing an element of the crime at the preliminary hearing, it fails to meet the criteria for evidence upon which preliminary hearing judge may rely (i.e. hearsay alone cannot be considered by the Magistrate it must be corroborated by some other evidence). Com. v. Carmody, 799 A.2d 143 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002).
If the Commonwealth fails to provide enough evidence at the preliminary hearing to support a prima facie case and the accused is discharged, the Commonwealth is permitted to re-file those charges. Pa. R. Crim. P 544. Essentially, the Commonwealth can reinstitute the charge and re-arrest the defendant. This is not considered a violation of the double jeopardy doctrine (i.e. the rule against being tried more than once for the same crime) because a Magistrate's decision to dismiss criminal charges after a preliminary hearing is not appealable; therefore, the reinstitution of charges is the only recourse available to the Commonwealth to address an error by the Court. Com. v. Carbo, 822 A.2d 60 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003). The authority of the Commonwealth to reinstitute charges is not unlimited. First, the charges must be reinstituted prior to the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. In addition, the courts have held that the reinstitution may be barred in a case in which the Commonwealth has repeatedly rearrested the defendant in order to harass him or her. Reinstitution of charges could also be prohibited if it results in prejudice (i.e. harm to the accused). Com. v. Thorpe, 549 Pa. 343, 701 A.2d 488 (1997).