FREE CONSULTATIONS

Email or Call (215) 564-0644

    Pennsylvania Murder Charges, Deceased Person’s Statements Used to Prove Guilt

    Defense Trial Strategies – Excluding Statements That Accuse the Defendant

    Prosecutors often look to a deceased individual’s statements made prior to a murder to show that the defendant is guilty. These statements may point to a history of violence between the deceased and the defendant, such as “[Defendant] bought a gun and pointed it at me,” or a statement may show that the deceased feared the accused, “I’m scared of what [Defendant] might do to me.”

    Prosecutors often rely heavily on these types of INADMISSBLE statements to help prove a defendant’s guilt. In addition, many Pennsylvania criminal trial judges, who misunderstand complex rules of evidence, like hearsay rules, will allow such statements.

    A recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court case definitely puts the nail in the coffin on allowing prosecutors to use such statements, especially in murder cases.

    Victim’s Statement Before Death Accusing the Defendant

    In July 2021, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned a first degree murder conviction and life sentence and ordered a new trial. See Commonwealth v. Fitzpatrick, July 23, 2021.

    Fitzpatrick was convicted of murdering his wife by drowning. The day before the alleged murder, the wife wrote a note and sent an email to a co-worker stating that if something happened to her, her husband was responsible. Both the note and email were admitted at trial and used heavily by the prosecution to point to Fitzpatrick’s guilt during opening and closing statements .

    The defendant-husband claimed that the death was caused by an ATV accident; the wife accidentally drowned after she was thrown from the ATV, into a nearby creek.

    After trial, the defendant filed a post trial motion for judgment of acquittal, which the trial judge granted. The trial judge found that even though the wife’s note and email were allowed, the evidence was insufficient to convict.

    The prosecution appealed to the Superior Court which reinstated the conviction. The lower appeals court held that the evidence was sufficient to result in a conviction. It also held that the wife’s note was admissible, but the email was not, and despite the error, it was harmless.

    On appeal, the PA Supreme Court agreed with the husband and ordered a new trial. The Court explained that a victim’s statement about fear of the defendant or even prior violence by the defendant is extraordinarily problematic. Such statements are hearsay and can be admitted under very strict circumstances, such as cases where a defendant raises self-defense, or claims the death occurred due to an accident or suicide. The Court found that even in these limited circumstances, a victim’s statement will usually be INADMISSIBLE because they simply aren’t relevant.

    Analysis of the Case – Murder trials & hearsay evidence

    A murder victim’s fearfulness of the defendant is not relevant to prove the defendant’s intent or motive. Period. The only thing such statements do, is prove a victim’s state of mind, and nothing more, and therefore, they aren’t relevant to any issue in a murder case. The burden of proof lies solely with the prosecution, which in a first degree murder case, must prove that the defendant committed the murder with specific intent to kill.

    The statement in the Fitzpatrick case, “If something happens to me – [Defendant],” showed that the wife feared the husband. But in a first degree murder case, where the prosecution must prove intent, the wife’s statement (as to her fearfulness) has ZERO relevance on the accused’s motive or intent. Rather, what would be relevant are the accused’s own statements about his or her specific intent, i.e., “I’m going to kill [deceased].”

    Prosecutors cannot rely on a deceased person’s statements to prove their case. Instead, they must use admissible evidence to win a case. If they cannot do so, a NOT GUILTY verdict is appropriate.

    David S. Nenner

    "Top Rated Criminal Defense Lawyer"
    (2015-2022)

    MURDER, Att. Murder CHARGES – Negotiated Significantly Lower prison sentence (Feb. 2022, PHILA)

    Mr. Anderson faced murder and attempted murder charges after an incident in Northeast Philadelphia involving the shooting death of Anderson’s sister’s boyfriend and the boyfriend’s roommate who was shot 5 times and survived. The decedent had previously beaten the...

    Att. MURDER CHARGES – NOT GUILTY JURY VERDICT (April 2022, PHILA)

    The Commonwealth alleged that Mr. Shelton shot and seriously injured a male in a bar in North Philadelphia called Circles. There was video of the shooting which happened outside the bar. However, Mr. Nenner presented witnesses who testified that the person in the bar...

    MURDER, Robbery CHARGES – NOT GUILTY JURY VERDICT (MAY 2021, PHILA)

    Mr. Nenner's client was charged with multiple crimes (murder, conspiracy, aggravated assault, robbery, etc.) after a shooting death occurred at a gambling house in North Philadelphia. At trial, Mr. Nenner successfully presented a self-defense argument and convinced...

    MURDER CHARGE – NOT GUILTY JURY VERDICT (MAY 2021, PHILA)

    Mr. Nenner’s client was charged with murder and gun charges in Philadelphia. The client was accused of shooting and killing another male on Arch Street near the 5600 block of Ithan Street in Philadelphia. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty after deliberating...

    Drug Possession Case – Motion to Suppress Granted

    Mr. Nenner presented evidence that to show that the traffic stop was a pretextual stop. The officer had no reason to pull the car over. The judge agreed and suppressed the evidence. As a result, the prosecution withdrew the charges.

    Sentencing for 1st Degree Murder in PA

    In this article below we discuss sentencing for 1st degree murder cases in Pennsylvania. In later articles, we will discuss sentencing for 2nd and 3rd degree murder cases. If you or a loved one is facing murder charges in Philadelphia or the surrounding counties,...

    Philadelphia Criminal Trials – Evidence Pointing to Another Perpetrator in Drug Possession or Drug Manufacture Cases

    In criminal trials in Philadelphia, one pretty common defense tactic is pointing the finger at another person at trial. This can raise enough doubt to result in a not guilty verdict by the judge or jury that the defendant was not the perpetrator of the crime. Here’s...

    Philadelphia Murder & Gun Possession Cases Increasing in 2021 – A Look at Common Charges & Defenses

    A look at PA criminal law for Murder (1st, 2nd, 3rd Degree), Aggravated Assault, Robbery, Possession of a Firearm, Carrying a Firearm Without a License, Carrying a Firearm in Philadelphia (misdemeanor).

    Pennsylvania (State) Drug Charges, Dog Sniffs & Constitutional Law

    Federal and Pennsylvania state courts treat narcotics dog searches differently. So different that the same scenario could result in different outcomes in federal versus state court. For example, a Philadelphia resident is pulled over for speeding. During the traffic...

    Dog Sniff Searches of Cars in Pennsylvania Traffic Stops (Federal Law)

    Dog or canine searches of cars during traffic stops in PA often lead to drug possession/dealing charges and gun charges. For example, a police officer pulls over a driver for speeding. During the traffic stop, a canine search is performed revealing several bags of...