Email or Call (215) 564-0644

    Philadelphia Criminal Drug Case Appeal News – Court Rules in Favor of Defendant Due to a Brady Violation

    Commonwealth v. Matthews, Pennsylvania Superior Court (May 26, 2015)

    Commonwealth v. Matthews is a very interesting, recent PA criminal appeals case involving convictions for possession of a controlled substance and possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver (i.e., drug dealing). The defendant in the case appealed his convictions, arguing that the prosecutor withheld exculpatory (favorable) evidence which caused prejudice. This is known as a Brady violation.

    What’s a Brady Violation?

    Under Brady v. Maryland, a U.S. Supreme Court case, the prosecution has an obligation to disclose all exculpatory information material to the guilt or punishment of an accused, including evidence which can impeach a witness. Impeachment evidence is basically any evidence which conflicts with a witness’ expected trial testimony. In other words, if you expect a witness to testify to “X” at trial, but you know that the witness has previously stated “Y,” then you are under an obligation to disclose that evidence.

    The standard to win a criminal appeal or Post Conviction Relief Act petition due to a Brady violation is quite high. The defendant has to prove the following:

    1. the prosecutor withheld evidence,
    2. the evidence, whether exculpatory or impeaching, is helpful to the defendant, and
    3. the failure to disclose the evidence prejudiced the defendant’s case.

    Summary of the Facts

    Two Philadelphia Police officers were on patrol in a purported “high-crime” area in Philadelphia. The officers testified that they observed behavior which led them to believe that defendant Matthews was engaging in a drug sale with another individual. After Matthews was stopped and searched, officers uncovered a prescription bottle containing about 40 bags of crack cocaine totaling roughly 2 grams. No other evidence of drug selling was uncovered on Matthews, such as scales, known cutting agents, etc.

    At trial, Matthews argued that he had a serious drug problem and also argued that the drugs were solely for his own personal use. Therefore, he could not have been guilty of the drug dealing charge. To counter this, the prosecution presented evidence that Matthews did not look like a typical drug user and also argued this to the jury. Matthews’ first trial resulted in a hung jury on the drug dealing charge (possession with intent to deliver). A mistrial was declared, and he was subsequently convicted on that charge after a second trial.

    Brady Evidence at Issue in the Case

    The Brady evidence at issue in the case was written statements of the arresting officers which were made during an Internal Affairs investigation. In those statements, the arresting officers indicated that Matthews looked extremely intoxicated when he was arrested. These statements conflicted with the officers’ trial testimony and were only provided to the defense after the second trial had already concluded. Matthews immediately raised the issue with the trial court, which refused to order a new trial, and he was sentenced to 3 years of probation. Matthews then filed an appeal with the Superior Court.

    Related: Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) Petition – Newly Discovered Evidence

    Superior Court’s Analysis of this Brady Issue

    The court found that the statements of the officers made during the Internal Affairs investigation raised an issue as to whether Matthews possessed the drugs for personal use, rather than with the intent to sell them. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the trial court for a full hearing on the issue of whether the statements were in fact Brady evidence and whether the failure to turn them over to the defense caused prejudice.

    It will be interesting to see what happens when the case is remanded back to the trial court.

    About Our Criminal Appeals Practice

    Our lawyers pride themselves on being criminal trial lawyers, and this gives them a unique perspective when handling appeals and PCRA petitions. Oftentimes, the success of an appeal or PCRA petition depends on scouring the trial record. That’s why it’s important to have a criminal appeals lawyer with real world trial experience. Call for a free consultation. (215) 564-0644

    Disclaimer: This website does not create any attorney-client relationship or provide legal advice. Our lawyers provide legal advice only after accepting a case. It is imperative that any action taken is done on advice of counsel. Read full disclaimer below.

    David S. Nenner

    "Top Rated Criminal Defense Lawyer"

    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...


    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...


    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...


    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 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...

    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...