Comm v F.H.
Client F.H. was stopped by police after they noticed him attempting to go into a home and, upon looking over his shoulder and seeing police, turned and walked away suspiciously. Police stopped him and, after conversing with him for a minute, searched him, finding approximately 70 packets of crack cocaine on him. F.H. was arrested and charged with PWID (Possession with Intent to Deliver).crack cocaine, as well as misdemeanor possession. Attorney Clemens filed a Motion to Suppress the crack cocaine, arguing that merely turning and walking away from a home that one was about to enter did not give police enough reasonable suspicion to stop someone and, furthermore, the encounter with police and F.H. did not rise to the level of probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed, and therefore the search and recovery of the 70 packets of crack cocaine was unlawful, and should be suppressed.
RESULT: Felony PWID charge was withdrawn.
Comm v J.C.
Client J.C. was observed by police leaving a utility plant at 3am, through a hole in a fence, along with another man. J.C. and the other man were stopped a block away, and cutting tools were found in the back of their pick-up truck. Upon questioning by the police, which was captured on the arresting officer’s body cam footage, J.C. had admitted that he and the other man were at the plant to take items. J.C. and the other man were arrested and charged with felony and misdemeanor charges, including Criminal Trespass, Criminal Conspiracy, and Attempted Theft. Attorney Clemens filed a Motion to Suppress the Statement, arguing to the prosecutor at the time of trial that the statement was taken in violation of J.C.’s Miranda warnings, since the police suspected him of being involved in a crime and never gave him proper warnings prior to questioning, and also argued to the prosecutor that the cases needed to be “severed”, since under an evidentiary rule commonly known as “Bruton”, J.C.’s statement could not be used in the same trial as the co-defendant.
RESULT: All charges withdrawn prior to motion being litigated, and J.C. plead to a summary offense (similar to a traffic ticket) of disorderly conduct, for no penalty, no probation, and no fine.
Comm v A.S.
Client A.S. was at a bar in Northeast Philadelphia with his friends, celebrating St. Patrick’s Day festivities, when another group of males entered the bar. Later that night, an argument ensued in the parking lot between A.S. and his group of friends, and the other group, and a fight broke out, which was captured on surveillance video. The other group lost the fight, and two of the men from the other group sustained serious injuries. A.S. and four of his friends were arrested and charged with multiple counts of felony Aggravated Assault, Criminal Conspiracy, and related charges for all five “victims” – so A.S. was charged with 5 separate cases. At the preliminary hearing, Attorney Clemens and the other defense attorneys were able to cross-examine the “victims”, point out the level of intoxication of the victims, as well as use the surveillance video played at the preliminary hearing to the benefit of A.S. and his friends by demonstrating that the other group of males were not as “innocent” as they claimed to be in the entire ordeal. A.S. had all five cases against him discharged at the preliminary hearing.
RESULT: All five cases of assault and related charges discharged at preliminary hearing.
Comm v J.D.
Client J.D. was arrested after police observed him making hand-to-hand narcotics transactions (“money in exchange for small items”) on 3100 Custer Street in the Kensington section of Philadelphia. The buyers were stopped a short distance away, and the same narcotics (heroin), with the same “stamp,” were recovered from each buyer. J.D. was charged with felony Possession with Intent to Deliver and related charges. Through cross-examination at the preliminary hearing, Attorney Clemens was able to have the lead investigator concede that the area around 3100 Custer is also known for high narcotics sales activity, especially heroin, and that the investigator did not see where these buyers came from prior to entering 3100 Custer, and that he lost sight of them briefly after they left 3100 Custer, as well as the fact that it is common for a certain “stamp” (symbol used on narcotics packaging) to be sold in various places, and by various dealers, on the same day. All charges against J.D. were then discharged for a lack of evidence at the preliminary hearing. This was very beneficial to client J.D., as he was on probation at the time, and was being held in custody on a probation detainer pending the outcome of this new case.
RESULT: All charges dismissed at the preliminary hearing.
Comm v T.L.
Client T.L. was the front-seat passenger in a car, which was pulled over by police in North Philadelphia. Upon approach of the vehicle, police saw T.L. making furtive, suspicious movements, and leaning down toward the front of his seat. After removing T.L. and the driver, police found a loaded semi-automatic handgun under T.L.’s seat, and narcotics under the driver’s seat, and money in the driver’s pocket. T.L. was arrested for the firearm, and the driver was arrested for a large quantity of narcotics. T.L. gave a post-Miranda statement admitting that he had held the gun in his hands as he drove around with the driver/co-defendant, and as police approached the vehicle, and he had placed it under the car seat. Based on prior felony convictions, T.L. was prohibited from possessing a firearm, which carries a maximum of 20 years in prison. At the preliminary hearing, Attorney Clemens cross-examined the arresting officers about the possible location of the gun prior to their approach, as well as the owner of the car (the driver), and the location of the narcotics, and also cross-examined the detective who took the statement. In arguing for a dismissal at the preliminary hearing, Attorney Clemens argued that the gun was more likely than not the driver’s gun, since it was the driver who had the drugs and money, and who owned the car, and not T.L.
Result: All firearms charges dismissed for lack of evidence at preliminary hearing.
Comm v E.O.
Client E.O. was picking up his daughter from her workplace, where daughter’s co-workers had been harassing and mistreating her. Defendant E.O. had a license to carry a firearm, and happened to have his firearm on him that night. In the parking lot of daughter’s workplace, an argument ensued, which turned physical, and video surveillance captured the incident, which did show E.O. involved in the argument and physical escalation, and according to the complainant, E.O. punched her in the face and threatened her with the gun. Through cross-examination of major inconsistencies between the preliminary hearing and the trial, as well as cross-examination of the assigned investigator regarding the incompleteness of the investigation, Attorney Clemens was able to secure an acquittal for E.O.
Result: Not Guilty – all charges.
Comm v. F.W.
Client F.W. was the front-seat passenger in a car that was stopped on 2800 Kensington Avenue, between Lehigh Avenue and Somerset Streets, in one of the most drug-infested neighborhoods in the country. As soon as police pulled the car over, F.W. jumped out of the front passenger’s seat and began to walk away. Police ordered him back to the passenger’s seat and, after some conversation with F.W. and the driver, police searched F.W.’s jacket pockets, where they found 750 packets of heroin/fentanyl, and 781 packets of crack cocaine. Over $6,000 in cash was also confiscated from the car. F.W. was charged with PWID (Possession With Intent to Deliver), and due to his prior criminal convictions, as well as being on parole at the time of his arrest, he faced a lengthy state prison sentence. Attorney Clemens filed a Motion to Suppress the narcotics, arguing that the police lacked reasonable suspicion to detain F.W. since he had done nothing wrong at the time police ordered him back to the car, and also that they lacked probable cause to search F.W.’s pockets. Through cross-examination of the arresting officer, pointing out inconsistencies in testimony and missing pieces in the police paperwork, and combined with legal argument and relevant case law regarding search and seizure under the 4th Amendment, Attorney Clemens was able to have this large amount of narcotics “suppressed”, or thrown out, and F.W. was released from custody.
Result: Motion to Suppress Narcotics Granted, and all Charges withdrawn due to 750 packets of heroin/fentanyl and 781 packets of crack cocaine being suppressed.
Comm v. A.R.
Client A.R. was observed on a high-crime, high-narcotics block in the Kensington neighborhood of Philadelphia. A.R. was observed standing next to another man, and every few minutes, “buyers” would approach A.R. and the other man, hand money to the other man, and that man would then hand the money to A.R. and take items from a baggie that was on a windowsill of the house they were hanging in front of. These buyers were all later stopped with heroin, and both A.R. and the other man were arrested and charged with PWID (possession with intent to deliver) and criminal conspiracy. At the preliminary hearing, Attorney Clemens was able to successfully argue that the mere receiving of money by A.R. did not mean that, under the law, there was enough evience for him to have to go to trial, and the preliminary hearing judge agreed.
Result: All charges dismissed due to lack of evidence.
Comm v. T.T.
Client T.T. was on probation/parole for 3 different cases, and was arrested on new charges of PWID (possession with intent to deliver) and Criminal Conspiracy. Therefore, T.T. had 3 “detainers” lodged against him, meaning that he was to be held until the new case was disposed, and if he was convicted, then his probation would be revoked, and he would be re-sentenced on those cases, as well as the new case. When the government was not initially ready to proceed, Attorney Clemens filed a Motion to Lift Detainer on behalf of T.T., and after presenting beneficial information about T.T. to his parole judge, as well as family and friends, all 3 detainers were lifted. T.T. was therefore able to go home to his family while the new case was still open. After the government again was not ready, Attorney Clemens was able to argue for a dismissal of the case, which was granted.
Result: 3 detainers lifted; client released from jail, and new charges dismissed due to a lack of prosecution.
Comm v. S.M.
Client S.M. was charged with Robbery, Conspiracy, Assault and related charges after she and her friends allegedly beat another young woman, and after allegedly stealing that young woman’s cell phone. At the preliminary hearing, Attorney Clemens was able to get the felony charges dismissed after cross-examining the complainant about what she was actually able to see during the incident. Later, at the trial on the assault charges, Attorney Clemens was again able to raise questions and, more importantly, reasonable doubt, regarding the complainant’s ability to observe everything that took place during the incident.
Result: Felony charges dismissed due to lack of evidence at the preliminary hearing; Not Guilty on all remaining charges at trial.
Comm v. J.R.
Client J.R. was observed selling narcotics on a high-crime, high narcotics-activity block in West Kensington. Others were out on the block, also selling narcotics, according to the police. J.R. was stopped after a few sets of buyers that he was observed transacting with were stopped with drugs. J.R.’s backpack was searched, and bags of cocaine were recovered, which matched the bags of cocaine recovered from the buyers. He was arrested and charged with felony PWID (Possession with Intent to Deliver), as well as misdemeanor possession of cocaine. Attorney Clemens filed a Motion to Suppress the narcotics, arguing that the police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop J.R., and lacked probable cause to search him and his backpack. After extensive cross-examination of the “eyes” – a police term for the narcotics officer running a narcotics investigation – and closing argument on why the narcotics should be suppressed, the judge found it to be a very close call, and the case ultimately resulted in J.R. accepting a plea to the misdemeanor possession charge, and having the felony Possession with Intent to Deliver dismissed. Because J.R. was on probation at the time, this lesser charge allowed him to be released.