Philadelphia female criminal defense attorney Alexandra Kramen handles the following criminal violations:
DUI and drunk driving charges
theft, larceny
robbery
drug offenses
aggravated assault, battery
murder
rape, sexual assault, sex crimes
fraud, forgery
domestic violence
weapons violations, gun charges
vehicular homicide
white collar crimes
internet crimes, computer crimes
probation violations, parole violations
RICO, racketeering
federal crimes
state crimes
juvenile crimes, juvenile offenses
criminal appeals
misdemeanors, felonies
traffic citations
moving violations, speeding tickets
Criminal Defense Attorney for the Greater Philadelphia area
Alexandra Kramen is an aggressive and professional PA criminal defense lawyer serving Philadelphia County, Bucks County, Montgomery County, Chester County, and Delaware County in Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania Defenses to Criminal Charges
To convict a criminal defendant, the prosecutor must prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. As part of this process, the defendant is given an opportunity to present a defense. Possible defenses to a criminal charge:
“I Didn't Do It.”
Most often accused defendants try to avoid punishment by claiming they did not commit the act in question.
Presumption of Innocence
All people accused of a crime are legally presumed to be innocent until they are proven guilty, either in a trial or as a result of plea bargain or pleading guilty. This presumption means that the prosecutor must convince the jury or the judge in a bench trial, of the defendant's guilt, but also that the defendant need not say or do anything in his own defense. A defendant has the right to remain silent, not present any witnesses, and argue that the prosecution failed to prove his or her burden. If the prosecutor can't convince the jury that the defendant is guilty, the defendant goes free.
Reasonable Doubt
The prosecution must convince the judge or jury hearing the case that the defendant is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt"- A difficult standard to meet. The high burden of proof in Pennsylvania criminal cases means that judges and jurors are supposed to resolve all doubts about the meaning of the evidence in favor of the defendant. With such a high standard imposed on the prosecutor, a defendant's most common defense is often to argue that there is in fact Reasonable Doubt.
The Alibi Defense
An alibi defense consists of evidence that a defendant was somewhere other than the scene of the crime at the time it was committed. For example, assume that Jim is accused of committing a burglary on Love Street at midnight on Friday, December 8. Jim's alibi defense might consist of testimony that at the time of the burglary, he was with his friends at the Whisky Bar.
"I Did Do It, But..."
Sometimes a defendant can avoid punishment even if the prosecutor shows that that the defendant did, without a doubt, commit the act in question.
Self-Defense
Self-defense is a defense commonly asserted by someone charged with a crime of violence, such as battery, assault with a deadly weapon, or murder. The defendant admits that he or she did in fact commit the crime, however, claims that it was justified by the other person's threatening actions. The core issues in most self-defense cases are:
Who was the aggressor in the situation?
Was the defendant's belief that self-defense was necessary a reasonable one?
If so, was the force used by the defendant also reasonable?
Self-defense derives from the belief that people should be allowed to protect themselves from physical harm. This means that a person does not have to wait until he or she is actually struck to act in self-defense. If a reasonable person in the same circumstances would think that he or she is about to be physically attacked, that person has the right to strike first and prevent the attack. However, an act of self-defense cannot use more force than is reasonable -- someone who uses too much force may be guilty of a crime. For example, If Johnny threatened to punch Tommy in the arm, it would be unreasonable force for Tommy to pull out a gun and shoot Johnny.
The Insanity Defense
The insanity defense hinges on the principle that punishment is justified only if the defendant is capable of controlling his or her behavior and understanding that what he or she has done is wrong. Because some people suffering from a mental disorder are not capable of knowing or choosing right from wrong, the insanity defense prevents them from being criminally punished.
Defendants rarely enter pleas of "not guilty by reason of insanity." When they do, judges and jurors in Pennsylvania rarely uphold it.
Various definitions of insanity exist because neither the legal system nor psychiatrists can agree on one meaning of insanity in the criminal law context. The most popular definition is the "McNaghten rule," which defines insanity as "the inability to distinguish right from wrong." Another common test is known as "irresistible impulse": a person may know that an act is wrong, but because of mental illness he or she cannot control his or her actions (this person is described as acting out of an "irresistible impulse").
Defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity are not automatically set free. They are usually confined to a mental institution until their sanity is established. These defendants can spend more time in a mental institution than they would have spent in prison had they been convicted.
An insanity defense normally rests on the testimony of a psychiatrist, who testifies after examining the defendant, his or her mental history, medical history, and the facts of the case. Courts appoint psychiatrists at government expense to assist poor defendants who cannot afford to hire their own psychiatrists.
Once a defendant raises his or her sanity as a defense, he or she must submit to psychological tests conducted at the suggestion of the Pennsylvania prosecutor. This process can be a very painful and humiliating experience, one that many defendants choose to forgo rather than rely on insanity as a defense.
Search and Seizure Law in Pennsylvania
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution governs search and seizure law in Pennsylvania and limits the power of the police to make arrests, search people and their property, and seize objects and contraband (such as illegal drugs or weapons). These search and seizure provisions are all about citizen privacy. Therefore, the Fourth Amendment protects against "unreasonable" searches and seizures by state or federal law enforcement officers.
However, the Fourth Amendment does permit searches and seizures that are considered "reasonable." Essentially this means that police may conduct a search of your home, barn, car, boat, office, personal or business documents, bank account records, trash barrel, or whatever, if:
the police have probable cause to believe they can find evidence that you committed a crime, and a judge issues a search warrant, or
the particular circumstances justify the search without a warrant first being issued.
The Fourth Amendment applies to searches only if a person has a "legitimate expectation of privacy" in the place or thing searched. If not, the Fourth Amendment offers no protection because there are no privacy issues.
Courts typically use a two-part test to determine whether, at the time of the search, a defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place or things searched:
Did the person actually expect some degree of privacy?
Is the person's expectation objectively reasonable -- that is, one that society is willing to recognize?
For example, a person who uses public restrooms expects not to be spied upon (the person has an expectation of privacy) and most people would consider that expectation to be reasonable (there is an objective expectation of privacy as well). Therefore, the police installing a hidden video camera for spying in a public restroom will be considered a "search" and would most likely be deemed unreasonable under Fourth Amendment standards.
At the same time, if the police were looking for, and found a weapon on the front seat of a car, it is not considered a "search" under the Fourth Amendment because it is very unlikely that the person would believe the front seat of the car is a private place (no expectation of privacy), and even if the person did believe the front seat to be a private place, society would not be willing to extend the protections of privacy to that particular location.
If a court finds that evidence was obtained as the result of an unreasonable search, any evidence seized as a result of the search cannot be used as direct evidence against the defendant in a criminal prosecution, state or federal. This rule is known as the "exclusionary rule." Evidence resulting from an illegal search cannot be used to discover other evidence, under the legal rule known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine."
Miranda Rights
It does not matter whether an interrogation occurs in a jail or at your house, or on a busy downtown street, or while in custody, or the middle of an open field. If a person is in custody (deprived of his or her freedom of action in any significant way), the police must give a Miranda warning if they want to question the suspect and use the suspect's answers as evidence at trial. If a person is not in police custody, then no Miranda warning is required and anything the person says can be used at trial if that person is later charged with a crime. This exception most often comes up when the police stop someone on the street to question him or her about a recent crime or the person blurts out a confession before the police have an opportunity to deliver the warning.
Quite often people are surprised to learn that if a person has not yet been arrested, the police may question the person and use the answers in court without first providing the "Miranda warning" that advises people of their constitutional right to not answer questions and to have an attorney present if they do decide to talk to police officers.
Information voluntarily disclosed to a police officer (after the person has been properly warned) is usually admissible at trial. The key word is "voluntary." Police officers are not allowed to use physical force or psychological coercion to get a suspect to talk to them. If police officers obtain information through any forceful or illegal means, the prosecutor cannot use the information at trial. In addition, under the rule known as "the fruit of the poisonous tree," any evidence obtained by the police as the result of a coerced statement is also inadmissible.
Types of Criminal Charges
Felony is the most serious class of offense in the United States. Many jurisdictions separate felonies into their own classes in order to punish repeat offenders who commit heinous crimes more severely than a first-time offender convicted of committing a felony in a less hateful, cruel, or heinous fashion. A felony is generally punishable by a fine, imprisonment for more than a year, or both. Many crimes classified as felonies are considered offensive to the moral standards in most U.S. communities. Felonies include terrorism, treason, arson, murder, rape, robbery, burglary, and kidnapping to name a few.
In many states a felony is defined not only by length of incarceration, but also by the place of incarceration. Crimes that are punishable by incarceration in a state prison are considered felonies in a number of jurisdictions, while crimes that are punishable only by incarceration in a local jail are deemed misdemeanors. For crimes punishable by incarceration in either local jail or state prison, the crime will normally be classified according to where the defendant actually serves the sentence.
Misdemeanor is a criminal offense less serious than a felony and more serious than a mere infraction. Generally, misdemeanors are punishable by a fine or incarceration in a local jail, or both. Many states separate misdemeanors into three classes: high or gross misdemeanors, ordinary misdemeanors, and petty misdemeanors. These jurisdictions may use a number system in order to designate the level of misdemeanor (i.e. 1 would be the highest, 3 would be a less severe misdemeanor). Petty misdemeanors usually carry a jail sentence less than six months and a fine of $500 or less. The punishment prescribed for gross misdemeanors is greater than that prescribed for ordinary misdemeanors and less than that prescribed for felonies.
Infraction, a.k.a. petty offense, or summary offense, is the violation of an administrative regulation, an ordinance or municipal code, and, in some areas, a state or local traffic rule. In many states an infraction is not even considered a criminal offense and thus not punishable by any period of incarceration. Instead, such jurisdictions treat infractions as civil offenses. Even in jurisdictions that treat infractions as criminal offenses, incarceration is not usually contemplated as punishment, and when it is, confinement is limited to serving time in a local jail.
Philadelphia DUI Lawyer
If you receive a DUI and have no prior arrests then Alexandra Kramen will work to get you accepted into the ARD program to avoid jail time, a criminal record, and suspension of your drivers license. If you are not eligible for the ARD program, Alexandra Kramen will fight hard to get you a "not guilty" on your DUI arrest.
As of February 1, 2004, Pennsylvania laws relating to driving under the influence or controlled substances changed substantially and harsher penalties were the result. The elements of the new PA DUI laws are:
(75 Pa.C.S. Section 3802) (a) - General Impairment - (1) An individual may not be in actual physical control of the movement of a vehicle after imbibing a sufficient amount of alcohol such that the individual is rendered incapable of safely driving, operating or being in actual physical control of the vehicle; (2) An individual may not be in actual physical control of the movement of a vehicle after imbibing a sufficient amount of alcohol such that the alcohol concentration in the individual's blood or breath is at least .08% but less than .10% within two hours after the individual has driven, operated or been in actual physical control of the movement of the vehicle.
(75 Pa.C.S. Section 3802) (b) - High Rate of Alcohol - An individual may not be in actual physical control of the movement of a vehicle after imbibing a sufficient amount of alcohol such that the alcohol concentration in the individual's blood or breath is at least .10% but less than .15% within two hours after the individual has driven, operated or been in actual physical control of the movement of the vehicle.
(75 Pa.C.S. Section 3802) (c) - Highest Rate of Alcohol - An individual may not be in actual physical control of the movement of a vehicle after imbibing a sufficient amount of alcohol such that the alcohol concentration in the individual's blood or breath is at least .16% or higher within two hours after the individual has driven, operated or been in actual physical control of the movement of the vehicle.
(75 Pa.C.S. Section 3802) (d) - Controlled substances - An individual may not be in actual physical control of the movement of a vehicle under any of the following circumstances: (1) there is in the individual's blood any amount of a (i) Schedule I controlled substance, as defined in the Controlled Substance, Drug, Devise and Cosmetic Act or (ii) Schedule II or Schedule III controlled substance, as defined in the Controlled Substance, Drug, Devise and Cosmetic Act which has not been medically prescribed for the individual or (iii) metabolite of a substance under paragraph (i) or (ii).
(75 Pa.C.S. Section 3802) (e) - Minors - A minor (an individual under 21 years of age) may not be in actual physical control of the movement of a vehicle after imbibing a sufficient amount of alcohol such that the alcohol concentration in the individual's blood or breath is .02% or higher within two hours after the individual has driven, operated or been in actual physical control of the movement of the vehicle.
Refusal of Breath, Blood or Urine Test - If you refused to take a breath, blood or urine test after being arrested for DUI in Pennsylvania, your license will be suspended for a period of not less than 1 year and a 3 day mandatory incarceration. You should take action immediately if chemical tests were refused. The arresting officer must forward Notice of Refusal (DL-26 Form), to inform Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) of the driver's refusal. Once received, PennDOT forwards the order to the driver that their license will be suspended 30 days from the date of correspondence. Driver has 30 days from correspondence date to appeal in a civil proceeding.
If you or a loved one have been arrested and face criminal charges, please contact our office immediately to set up a consultation.
This website provides general information about cases represented by My Civil Attorney. My Civil Attorney will only provide legal advice after having entered into an attorney-client relationship. Use of this site does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. It is imperative that any action taken be done on the advice of counsel. Because every case is different, the description of awards and cases previously handled do not guarantee a similar outcome in current or future cases. If you are in need of legal assistance contact a lawyer at My Civil Attorney directly.
Use of any of the images on this site without the express written consent of My Civil Attorney is strictly prohibited.
.jpg)
.JPG)
