# Com. v. Woodall, J.

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · January 22, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11244813

## Case

- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** January 22, 2026
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion by Nichols
- **Judges:** Nichols
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11244813

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that appellate courts may raise the issue of waiver sua sponte

## Opinion text

J-S29013-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JASON MICHAEL WOODALL :
:
Appellant : No. 876 WDA 2024

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 15, 2024
In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-63-CR-0000746-2023

BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., SULLIVAN, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED: January 22, 2026

Appellant Jason Michael Woodall appeals pro se from the judgment of

sentence imposed following his convictions for delivery a controlled substance

(cocaine) and possession of a controlled substance (cocaine).1 Appellant

raises numerous claims on appeal, including violations of the compulsory

joinder rule, improper venue, violation of his speedy trial rights, the instant

charges were barred by the statute of limitations, Brady2 violations, and

prosecutorial misconduct. We affirm.

The underlying facts and procedural history of this case are well known

to the parties. See Trial Ct. Op., 9/18/24, at 1-4; Trial Ct. Op. & Order,

____________________________________________

1 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30) and (16), respectively.

2 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
J-S29013-25

1/26/24, at 4-8, 10, 12.3 Briefly, on March 2, 2021, a criminal complaint was

filed charging Appellant with six counts of delivery of a controlled substance

(cocaine) and six counts of possession of a controlled substance (cocaine), in

connection with six narcotics transactions with one or more confidential

informants (CI). Appellant was arrested on April 14, 2023. Appellant filed a

counseled omnibus pretrial motion seeking to dismiss this matter based on

violations of Pa.R.Crim.P. 600 and 18 Pa.C.S. § 110, as well as raising claims

that the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County was the improper

venue and lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court denied this

motion. Subsequently, after a hearing, the trial court granted Appellant’s

counsel leave to withdraw and allowed Appellant to proceed pro se. Appellant

filed several pro se pre-trial motions, which the trial court denied. Following

a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of all charges on April 11, 2024.

On July 15, 2024, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate

term of ten to twenty years’ incarceration. On July 22, 2024, Appellant

simultaneously filed a post-sentence motion (captioned as “sentence

manipulation/entrapment modification motion”), a notice of appeal, and a

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. The trial court denied Appellant’s post-sentence

____________________________________________

3 The Honorable Jesse Pettit, who presided over Appellant’s trial and
sentencing hearing, wrote the September 18, 2024 Rule 1925(a) opinion, as
well as the March 14, 2024 opinion and order, and April 1, 2024 memorandum
and order. The Honorable Valerie Costanzo, who presided over the hearings
on Appellant’s counseled motion for bail and counseled omnibus pretrial
motion, wrote the January 26, 2024 opinion and order.

-2-
J-S29013-25

motion on September 17, 2024.4

The trial court filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion addressing Appellant’s issues

and adopting the analysis set forth in the trial court’s January 26, 2024 opinion

and order, March 14, 2024 opinion and order, and April 1, 2024 memorandum

and order.5

On appeal, Appellant raises the following issues, which we restate

verbatim:

1. Warrantless GPS usage.

2. Fabricated fraudulent evidence control logs.

3. Unconstitutional venue change lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.

4. Double jeopardy clause pursuant to 18 Pa C.S. 110.

5. Rule 600 lack of due diligence.

6. Rule 600, 180 days of pretrial confinement.

7. Hearsay testimony during preliminary hearing.

8. Invalid affidavit & arrest warrant.

9. Invalid arrest warrant.

10. Stale charges.

____________________________________________

4 Appellant’s notice of appeal was premature because he filed it simultaneously

with his post-sentence motion. See Commonwealth v. Muhammed, 219
A.3d 1207, 1210 n.5 (Pa. Super. 2019); see also Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(A)(2);
Pa.R.A.P. 108(d)(1), 903(c)(3). However, because the trial court
subsequently denied Appellant’s post-sentence motion, we will treat
Appellant’s notice of appeal as timely. See Muhammed, 219 A.3d at 1210
n.5.

5 The trial court did not order Appellant to file a Rule 1925(b) statement.

-3-
J-S29013-25

11. Prosecutorial misconduct.

12. Unconstitutionally denied bail.

13. Compel confidential informant.

14. Suggestive single photo identification procedure.

15. Ineffective assistant of pretrial counsel.

Appellant’s Brief at 2, 18, 35, 43, 47, 59, 68, 71, 75, 77, 81, 89, 97, 100, 105

(unpaginated) (some formatting altered).6,7

Rule 1925(b) Waiver

Before we address the merits of Appellant’s claims, we must address

whether Appellant has preserved them for our review. See Commonwealth

v. Edmondson, 718 A.2d 751, 752 n.7 (Pa. 1998) (explaining that appellate

courts may raise the issue of waiver sua sponte).

In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court concluded that Appellant

waived his claims for review because Appellant “has failed to follow the

requirements, relating to his Concise Statement, as set forth in Pa.R.A.P.

1925(b)(4)(iv)[.]” Trial Ct. Op., 9/18/24, at 5. Further, the trial court

____________________________________________

6 We note that Appellant’s brief does not contain a statement of questions
presented as required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Pa.R.A.P.
2111(a)(4), 2116. We derive these issues from the headings in Appellant’s
brief. Further, Appellant’s brief lacks a statement of jurisdiction, a statement
of both the scope of review and the standard of review, a statement of the
case, a summary of argument, and a statement of compliance with the word
count limit of Pa.R.A.P. 2135. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(1), (3), (5), (6), (12);
2135(a), (d).

7 Additionally, Appellant’s brief contains a section captioned “Addendum”
which contains additional allegations of prosecutorial misconduct. See
Appellant’s Brief at 108-19.

-4-
J-S29013-25

explained that several of Appellant’s issues were too vague for the trial court

to address. See id. at 40 (explaining that Appellant’s claim that “he has a

‘standing objection’ to each side-bar ruling that was against his well-

established constitutional rights[]” was “waived for vagueness and lack of

development”); id. at 44 (stating that Appellant asserted in his Rule 1925(b)

statement that “the prosecutor at trial, engaged in ‘blatant and cumulative

prosecutorial misconducts’ throughout the case[,]” and that Appellant “fails to

cite to specific incidents to support his claim”).

“[T]he applicability of waiver principles . . . is a question of law, over

which our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.”

Commonwealth v. Barbour, 189 A.3d 944, 954 (Pa. 2018) (citations

omitted).

Initially, we must determine whether Appellant’s Rule 1925(b)

statement complies with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. It is

well-established that any issue not raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement will be

deemed waived for appellate review. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii);

Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 1998).

This Court has held that when an appellant files a Rule 1925(b)

statement before the trial court orders one, “there is no need for the trial

court” to request one. Commonwealth v. Nobles, 941 A.2d 50, 52 (Pa.

Super. 2008). However, if the appellant fails to include a claim in a voluntarily

filed Rule 1925(b) statement, that claim is waived on appeal. See id. As the

Nobles Court reasoned, this Court will not encourage “‘sandbagging’ by

-5-
J-S29013-25

[appellants] if they are allowed to quickly file a Rule 1925(b) statement and

then claim that nothing is waived because the Rule 1925(b) statement was

not in response to a formal request.” Id.

Rule 1925(b) also provides that an appellant’s concise statement must

“concisely identify each error that the appellant intends to assert with

sufficient detail to identify the issue to be raised for the judge.” Pa.R.A.P.

1925(b)(4)(ii). As this Court has explained, Rule 1925(b) “is a crucial

component of the appellate process because it allows the trial court to identify

and focus on those issues the parties plan to raise on appeal.”

Commonwealth v. Bonnett, 239 A.3d 1096, 1106 (Pa. Super. 2020)

(citation omitted).

Further, a Rule 1925(b) statement should only identify the errors made

by the trial court; it should not be a lengthy narrative of facts, procedural

history, explanations, or arguments. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(iv). “Our law

makes it clear that Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) is not satisfied by filing any statement.

Rather, the statement must be ‘concise’ and coherent as to permit the trial

court to understand the specific issues being raised on appeal.”

Commonwealth v. Vurimindi, 200 A.3d 1031, 1038 (Pa. Super. 2018)

(citation omitted and some formatting altered). “The court’s review and legal

analysis can be fatally impaired when the court has to guess at the issues

raised.” Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410, 415 (Pa. Super. 2011)

(citation omitted).

-6-
J-S29013-25

“If a [Rule] 1925(b) statement is too outrageous, we have dismissed

the appeal without addressing any of the issues raised.” Vurimindi, 200 A.3d

at 1038 (citation omitted). However, this Court has recognized that “not all

lengthy [Rule] 1925(b) statements require dismissal of the appeal.” Id. at

1039. In Vurimindi, this Court held that the pro se defendant waived all of

the issues he attempted to raise by filing a fifty-three-page Rule 1925(b)

statement. See id. at 1040, 1043; see also Commonwealth v. Reynolds,

339 MDA 2025, 2025 WL 3514366, at *3 (Pa. Super. filed Dec. 8, 2025)

(unpublished mem.) (concluding that the defendant waived all of his issues

on appeal where the defendant’s thirty-page Rule 1925(b) statement was

“neither concise nor compliant with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)”).8

It is well-established that

pro se status does not relieve [a litigant] of his duty to follow the
Rules of Appellate Procedure. Although this Court is willing to
liberally construe materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status
confers no special benefit upon the appellant. To the contrary,
any person choosing to represent himself in a legal proceeding
must, to a reasonable extent, assume that his lack of expertise
and legal training will be his undoing. Accordingly, pro se litigants
must comply with the procedural rules set forth in the
Pennsylvania Rules of Court; if there are considerable defects, we
will be unable to perform appellate review.

Vurimindi, 200 A.3d at 1037-38 (citations omitted and some formatting

altered).

____________________________________________

8 See Pa.R.A.P. 126(b) (stating this Court may rely on unpublished decisions

of this Court filed after May 1, 2019, for their persuasive value).

-7-
J-S29013-25

Here, Appellant did not include his challenges to the validity of the arrest

warrant in his Rule 1925(b) statement; therefore, those issues are waived on

appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii); Lord, 719 A.2d at 309; Nobles, 941

A.2d at 52.

Next, following our review, we agree with the trial court that Appellant’s

Rule 1925(b) statement does not comply with our Rules of Appellate

Procedure because Appellant failed to succinctly identify the issues he

intended to raise on appeal and several issues are too vague to identify . See

Trial Ct. Op., 9/18/24, at 5, 40, 44; Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(iv). Specifically,

Appellant filed a twenty-six-page Rule 1925(b) statement which included

twenty-four issues with a lengthy recitation of purportedly inconsistent

testimony and often vague allegations of misconduct by the police and the

Washington County District Attorney’s Office. See Rule 1925(b) Statement,

7/22/24, at 1-26 (unpaginated). Based on the foregoing, we conclude that

Appellant has waived his claims on appeal.9 See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(iv);
____________________________________________

9 In any event, even if Appellant properly preserved his issues for review, we

would affirm based on the trial court’s analysis of these claims with the
exception of the trial court’s references to non-precedential decisions of this
Court filed prior to May 1, 2019. See Trial Ct. Op., 9/18/24, at 5-52; Trial Ct.
Mem. & Order, 4/1/24, at 1-6 (unpaginated); Trial Ct. Op. & Order, 3/14/24,
at 1-4 (unpaginated); Trial Ct. Op. & Order, 1/26/24, at 2-19. Further, we
note that the trial court’s opinions contain some typographical errors. On
page 8 of the September 18, 2024 opinion, a citation should read “T.T., vol.
I, 137, line 9-20, 4/9/24.” See Trial Ct. Op., 9/18/24, at 8. Further, on page
2 of the January 26, 2024 opinion and order; the citation should read
“Commonwealth v Barbour, 189 A.3d 944, 954 (Pa. 2018).” See Trial Ct.
Op. & Order, 1/26/24, at 2.
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

-8-
J-S29013-25

Vurimindi, 200 A.3d at 1038-40; Hansley, 24 A.3d at 415; Reynolds, 339

MDA 2025, 2025 WL 3514366, at *3.

Accordingly, we affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Application for post-submission

communication denied.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

DATE: 1/22/2026

____________________________________________

The parties are directed to attach a copy of the trial court’s opinions in the
event of further proceedings.

-9-
Circulated 12/23/2025 10:41 AM

Copies to:
to: District Attorney;
Attorney; Public
Public Defender;
Defender; Defendant;
Defendant; Superior
Superior t>ourt
uourt of PA

IN THE
IN THE COURT
COURT OF
OF COMMON
COMMON PLEAS
PLEAS OF
OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
WASHINGTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

CRIMINAL DIVISION
CRIMINAL DIVISION

COMMONWEALTH OF
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
PENNSYLVANIA, ))
)
Appellee,
Appellee, ))
)
vs.
vs. )) No.
No. 876
876 WDA
WDA 2024
2024
)
)
JASON
JASON MICHAEL
MICHAEL WOODALL,
WOODALL, ))
)
Appellant.
Appellant. ))

Appeal from the
Appeal from the Opinion
Opinion and Orders entered
and Orders entered on April 14,
on April 2023; June
14, 2023; June 22,
22, 2023; December 15,
2023; December 15,
2023; January
2023; 26, 2024;
January 26, 2024; March
March 14,
14, 2024;
2024; March
March 25,
25, 2024; April 1,
2024; April 2024; April
1, 2024; April 5,
5, 2024;
2024; May
May 16,
16,
2024; June
2024; June 21,
21, 2024;
2024; and
and July
July 8, 2024
8, 2024
In the
In the Court
Court of
of Common
Common Pleas
Pleas of
of Washington
Washington County
County
Criminal Division
Criminal Division at
at No:
No: CP-63-CR-000746-2023
CP-63-CR-000746-2023

RULE 1925(a)
RULE 1925{a) OPINION
OPINION

Before
Before the
the Court
Court is
is the
the Notice
Notice of
of Appeal
Appeal filed on behalf
filed on behalf of
of Defendant/Appellant
Defendant/Appellant Jason
Jason

Michael Woodall
Michael Woodall (hereinafter
(hereinafter “Defendant”)
"Defendant") in
in the
the above-captioned
above-captioned case
case at
at Criminal Division
Criminal Division

Docket No.
Docket 746-2023. This
No. 746-2023. opinion is
This opinion is written
written in
in support
support of
of the
the following
following Opinions
Opinions and
and Orders:
Orders:

April 14, 2023;
April 14, 2023; June
June 22,
22, 2023;
2023; December 15, 2023;
December 15, 2023; January 26, 2024;
January 26, 2024; March
March 14,
14, 2024;
2024; March
March

25, 2024; April
25, 2024; April 1, 2024; April
1, 2024; April 5,
5, 2024;
2024; May
May 16, 2024; June
16, 2024; June 21, 2024; July
21, 2024; 8, 2024
July 8, 1; and
2024'; and July 15,
July 15,

2024.
2024.

By way
By way of
of an
an amended
amended Bill
Bill of
of Information
Information filed
filed on
on December
December 20,
20, 2023,
2023, the
the

Commonwealth
Commonwealth charged
charged Defendant
Defendant with
with six
six counts
counts of
of Delivery
Delivery of
of aa Controlled
Controlled Substance,
Substance,

cocaine,
cocaine, 35
35 P.S.
P.S. §§ 780-113(a)(30),
780-113(a)(30), an
an ungraded
ungraded Felony;
Felony; and
and six
six counts
counts of
of Possession
Possession of
of aa

Controlled
Controlled Substance,
Substance, cocaine,
cocaine, 35
35 P.S.
P.S. §$ 780-1 13(a)(l 6), ,an ungraded
780-113(a)16), ungraded Misdemeanor.
Misdemeanor.
M 7+557

1See
See Sentencing
Sentencing Hr’g
Hr'g Tr,
Tr, 7/5/2024.
1
7/5/2024.
Defendant
Defendant was
was initially
initially represented
represented by
by Attorney
Attorney Adam
Adam Yarussi
Yarussi (hereinafter
(hereinafter “Attorney
"Attorney

Yarussi”). Attorney Yarussi
Yarussi"). Attorney Yarussi filed
filed aa Motion to Set
Motion to Set Bail on May
Bail on 16, 2023
May 16, and aa hearing
2023 and hearing was
was set
set for
for

June 20, 2023.
June 20, 2023. An order
order denying
denying bail
bail was filed June
was filed June 22, 2023. Attorney
22, 2023. Attorney Yarussi
Yarussi then
then filed
filed an
an

Omnibus Pretrial
Omnibus Pretrial Motion on July
Motion on July 27,
27, 2023,
2023, which
which included
included aa Motion
Motion to
to Dismiss
Dismiss Pursuant
Pursuant to
to Rule
Rule

600; Motion
600; to Dismiss
Motion to Dismiss Pursuant
Pursuant to
to 18
18 Pa.C.S.
Pa.C.S. §$ 110; Motion to
110; Motion Pursuant to
Dismiss Pursuant
to Dismiss to 42
42 Pa.C.S.
Pa.C.S.

§§ 5552(a);
5552(a); Motion
Motion to
to Dismiss:
Dismiss: Improper
Improper Venue
Venue and
and Lack
Lack of
of Subject
Subject Matter
Matter Jurisdiction;
Jurisdiction; Motion
Motion

to Reveal
to Reveal Confidential
Confidential Informant
Informant Identity;
Identity; Motion
Motion to
to Set
Set Bail;
Bail; and
and Motion
Motion to
to Compel Discovery.
Compel Discovery.

See Defendant’s
See Defendant's Omnibus
Omnibus Pre-Trial
Pre-Trial Motion, 7/27/2023. An Omnibus
Motion, 7/27/2023. Omnibus Pretrial
Pretrial Hearing
Hearing was
was held
held

on
on October 13, 2023
October 13, 2023 and
and the
the Honorable
Honorable Valarie Costanzo filed
Valarie Costanzo filed an
an Opinion
Opinion and Order on
and Order on January
January

26, 2024?2 Defendant
26, 2024. Defendant filed
filed multiple
multiple pro se pleadings
prose pleadings during period of
this period
during this of time while still
time while being
still being

represented?3
represented.

The Commonwealth filed
The Commonwealth filed aa Motion
Motion to Amend Criminal
to Amend Criminal Information on December
Information on 20,
December 20,

2023. Attorney
2023. Attorney Yarussi
Yarussi consented
consented to
to the
the amendment of the
amendment of the criminal
criminal information,
information, and
and Judge
Judge

Valarie Costanzo signed
Valarie Costanzo signed the
the consent
consent order on December
order on December 15,
15, 2023.
2023. An
An Amended
Amended Information
Information was
was

filed
filed on
on December 20, 2023.
December 20, 2023. On
On February
February 14,
14, 2024,
2024, Attorney
Attorney Yarussi
Yarussi filed
filed aa Motion
Motion to
to

Withdraw as
Withdraw Counsel. 4 An
as Counsel. An Order granting Attorney Yarussi ’s request
Order grantingAttorneyYarussi's request to
to withdraw
withdraw was
was filed
filed on
on

February 22,
February 2024. Defendant
22, 2024. Defendant filed
filed aa pro
pro se
se “Motion to Request
"Motion to Request to
to Proceed
Proceed Pro
Pro se”
se" on
on February
February

23, 2024.
23, 2024. On
On March
March 5,
5, 2024,
2024, the
the Court
Court accepted
accepted Defendant’s
Defendant's waiver of counsel
waiver of counsel and
and appointed
appointed

stand-by
stand-by counsel
counsel in
in the
the event
event that termination of
that termination of his
his self-representation was necessary.
self-representation was necessary.

2On
On January 1, 2024,
2024, by
by way
way of
of Administrative
Administrative Order
Order byby Washington
Washington County
County President
President Judge
Judge John
John DiSalle
DiSalle dated
2
January 1, dated
November 29, 2023,
November 29, 2023, the undersigned was
the undersigned was assigned
assigned toto the Washington County
the Washington County Criminal Docket, which
Criminal Docket, which included
included the
the
above-captioned
above-captioned case.
case. Judge
Judge Valarie
Valarie Costanzo
Costanzo was
was reassigned
reassigned to to the
the Family
Family Court
Court and
and Juvenile
Juvenile Dependency
Dependency
Dockets.
Dockets.
3Defendant’s
Defendant's pro
pro se
se pleadings
pleadings were
were addressed
addressed by
by way
way ofof letter
letter addressed to Attorney
Attorney Yarussi
Yarussi explaining
explaining that
3
addressed to that
Defendant is not
Defendant is not entitled
entitled to
to hybrid
hybrid representation.
representation. See Commonwealth v.
See Commonwealth v. Ellis,
Ellis, 626
626 A.2d
A.2d 1137, 1139 (Pa.
1137, 1139 (Pa. 1993).
1993).
Another Motion
4Another Motion toto Withdraw
Withdraw asas Counsel
Counsel was
was filed February 15,
15, 2024.
2024. ItIt appears the only
only change
change was
was aa change
change in
4
filed February appears the in
the presentation
the presentation date.
date.

2
Defendant
Defendant requested
requested his pro se pleadings,
pleadings, which were
were filed
filed while he was
was represented
represented by counsel,
counsel,

to be reinstated.
reinstated. Defendant’s
Defendant's request
request was
was denied;
denied; however
however he was
was permitted to refile the

pleadings.
pleadings. See
See Court
Court Order,
Order, 3/5/2024.
3/5/2024.

Defendant
Defendant filed
filed several
several motions
motions prior to the commencement
commencement of the jury trial.
trial. Defendant
Defendant

filed a prose
se “Motion
"Motion Pursuant
Pursuant to Rule 600(B),
600(B), (D)(2)
(0)(2) and (E)”
(E)" on February 23,
23, 2024.
2024. A

hearing was
was scheduled for March 12,
12, 2024 for the limited purpose of
of determining whether
whether

Defendant
Defendant was
was entitled to immediate
immediate release on
on nominal
nominal bail
bail since Judge
Judge Costanzo’s
Costanzo 's January 26,
26,

2024 Opinion and
and Order
Order previously addressed
addressed the due
due diligence issue raised by Defendant
Defendant

regarding
regarding Rule
Rule 600.
600. Defendant’s
Defendant's motion
motion was
was denied
denied by
by way
way of
of Opinion
Opinion and
and Order
Order dated
dated March
March

14,
14, 2024.
2024.

Defendant
Defendant filed
filed an
an “Omnibus
"Omnibus Pretrial
Pretrial Motion
Motion Briefing”
Briefing" on
on March
March 7,
7, 2024.
2024. On
On March
March 25,
25,

2024,
2024, aa Memorandum
Memorandum and
and Order
Order was
was filed
filed denying
denying Defendant’s
Defendant's motion
motion in
in its
its entirety.
entirety.

Defendant
Defendant also
also filed
filed aa pro se “Motion(s)-In-Limine”
prose "Motion(s)-In-Limine" on
on March
March 7,
7, 2024.
2024. A
A separate
separate

Memorandum
Memorandum and
and Order
Order was
was filed
filed April
April 1,1, 2024,
2024, which
which denied
denied Defendant’s
Defendant's motion
motion in
in its
its

entirety.
entirety. Defendant
Defendant filed
filed another
another “Motion(s)
"Motion(s) In
In Limine”
Limine" on
on March
March 19,
19, 2024,
2024, which
which was
was denied
denied

by
by way
way of
ofCourt
Court Order
Order dated
datedApril
April 5,5, 2024.
2024.

After
After the
the completion
completion of
ofaa pretrial
pretrial conference
conference on
on March
March 27,
27, 2024,
2024, this
this case
case was
was scheduled
scheduled

for
for aajury
jury trial
trial during
during the
the April
April 2024
2024 trial
trial term.
term. Another
Another pretrial
pretrial proceeding
proceeding was
was held
held on
onApril
April 4,
4,

2024
2024 to
to address
address last-minute
last-minute trial
trial issues.
issues. After
After pre-trial
pre-trial proceedings
proceedings and
andjury
jury selection
selection on
onApril
April 8,8,

2024,
2024, Defendant’s
Defendant'sjury
jury trial
trial took
took place
placeApril
April 9,9, 2024
2024 through
throughApril
April 11,
11, 2024.
2024. A
Ahearing
hearing was
was held
held

on
onApril
April 10,
10, 2024,
2024, outside
outside of
ofthe
the presence
presence of
ofthe
thejury,
jury, to
to address
address Defendant’s
Defendant's oral
oral motion
motion seeking
seeking

dismissal
dismissal of
ofcharges
charges relating
relating to
to the
the issue
issue of
ofaa GPS
GPS tracking
tracking device.
device. Defendant’s
Defendant's oral
oral motion
motion was
was

denied
denied atat the
the conclusion
conclusion of
ofthe
the hearing.
hearing. Pretrial
Pretrial Motion
Motion Hr’g
Hr'g Tr.,
Tr., 28,
28, 4/10/24.
4/10/24. Defendant
Defendantwas
was

33
found guilty
guilty on April
April 11, 2024 of six
six counts of delivery of a controlled substance,
substance, cocaine,
cocaine, and

six
six counts of possession
possession of a controlled substance,
substance, cocaine.
cocaine. See Verdict
Verdict Order,
Order, 4/12/24.
4/12/24.

Before Defendant’s
Defendant's sentencing,
sentencing, Defendant
Defendant filed
filed three motions
motions on April
April 25,
25, 2024:
2024:

“Deceleration
"Deceleration in
in Support
Support of Motion to Proceed In Forma
Forma Pauperis”,
Pauperis", “Motion
"Motion to Suppress
Suppress Nunc
Nunc

Pro Tunc”;
Tunc"; and “Motion
"Motion Requesting Transcripts
Transcripts and Exhibits
Exhibits Pursuant
Pursuant to Pa.
Pa. R.
R. J.
J. A.
A. 4007(E).”
4007(E)."

Defendant’s
Defendant's request
request to proceed
proceed in
in forma pauperis
pauperis was
was granted via
via a Court
Court Order
Order April
April 29,
29, 2024.
2024.

Defendant’s
Defendant's request
request for transcripts and
and exhibits
exhibits was
was granted on May
May 10,
10, 2024.
2024. Defendant
Defendant filed a

“Brief in Support
"Brief in Support of
of Motion
Motion to Suppress
Suppress Nunc
Nunc Pro Time”
Tune" on May
May 7,
7, 2024.
2024. Defendant’s
Defendant's motion
motion

was
was denied
denied as
as the
the issue
issue was
was previously
previously addressed
addressed and
and ruled on
on after
after an
an evidentiary
evidentiary hearing
hearing held
held

on
on April
April 10,
10, 2024.
2024. See
See Court
Court Order,
Order, 5/16/2024.
5/16/2024.

On
On June
June 14,
14, 2024,
2024, Defendant
Defendant filed
filed aa “Brady
"Brady Violations
Violations Motions
Motions to
to Dismiss.”
Dismiss." This
This

motion
motion was
was denied
denied by
by way
way of
of Order
Order entered
entered on
on June
June 21,
21, 2024.
2024. Defendant’s
Defendant's sentencing
sentencing hearing
hearing

was
was originally
originally scheduled
scheduled for
for July
July 8,
8, 2024;
2024; however,
however, the
the hearing
hearing was
was continued
continued for
for one
one (1)
(1) week
week

at
at the
the request
request of
ofthe
the Commonwealth.
Commonwealth. Defendant
Defendant was
was ultimately
ultimately sentenced,
sentenced, after
after aa hearing,
hearing, on
on

July
July 15,
15, 2024.
2024.

On
On July
July 22,
22, 2024,
2024, Defendant
Defendant filed
filed aa pro se Notice
prose Notice of
ofAppeal,
Appeal, “1925(b)
"1925(b) Concise
Concise Statements”,
Statements",

and
and aa “Direct
"Direct Appeal”
Appeal" pleading,
pleading, which
which appears
appears to
to be
be aa written
written brief
briefin
in support
support of
ofthe
the issues
issues set
set

forth in Defendant’s
forth in Defendant's Concise
Concise Statement.
Statement.5 Defendant contemporaneously filed a “Sentence
5 Defendant contemporaneously filed a "Sentence

Manipulation/Entrapment
Manipulation/Entrapment Modification
Modification Motion”
Motion" on
on July
July 22,
22, 2024.
2024.

• Defendant
5 Defendant argues
argues inin his
his “Direct
"Direct Appeal”
Appeal" brief
brief that
that transcripts
transcripts were
were withheld
withheld from
from him.
him. This
This Court
Court granted
granted
Defendant’s request for transcripts via a May 10, 2024 Order. At the time of Defendant’s filing of this appeal, the
Defendant's request for transcripts via a May 10, 2024 Order. At the time of Defendant's filing of this appeal, the
transcripts
transcriptsrelating
relatingtotothe
thejury
jurytrial
trialhad
hadnot
notbeen
beencompleted
completedby bythe
thecourt
courtreporter.
reporter. This
ThisCourt
Courtfiled
filedthe
theRequest
Requestfor forTrial
Trial
Transcript
Transcripton onMay
May 1,1,2024.
2024. Defendant
Defendantchose
chosetoto file
filehis
hisNotice
Notice of
ofAppeal,
Appeal, Concise
Concise Statement
Statementand
andDirect
DirectAppeal
Appealbrief
brief
on
on July
July 22,
22, 2024,
2024, which
which waswas seven
seven days
days after
after he
he was
was sentenced.
sentenced. This
This Court
Court reviewed,
reviewed, signed
signed and
and filed
filed the
the trial
trial
transcripts
transcripts immediately
immediatelyupon uponreceiving
receivingthe
thecompleted
completedtranscripts
transcripts from
fromthe
thecourt
courtreporter.
reporter.

44
Defendant
Defendant has
has failed
failed follow
follow the requirements,
requirements, relating to his Concise Statement,
Statement, as set
set forth

in
in Pa.R.A.P.
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(iv),
1925(b)4)(iv), (“The
("The Statement
Statement should not
not be redundant
redundant or
or provide
provide lengthy

explanations
explanations as to any error.”)
error.") This
This Court
Court attempts
attempts to address
address each
each issue raised in Defendant’s
Defendant's

6
1925(b)
1925(b) Concise Statement,
Statement, in order,
order, which he
he is
is pursuing
pursuing on
on appeal,
appeal, below.
below.6

DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION

A.
A. Untimely
Untimely Filing
Filing of
of the
the Instant
Instant Charges
Charges

1.1. Standard
Standard of
of Review
Review

A
A question
question regarding
regarding the
the application
application of
ofthe
the statute
statute of
oflimitations
limitations isis aa question
question of
oflaw.
law. See
See

Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.v. Russell,
Russell, 938
938 A.2d
A.2d 1082,
1082, 1087
1087 (Pa.Super.2007).
(Pa.Super.2007). “Where
"Where the
the petitioner
petitioner raises
raises

questions
questions of law, our
oflaw, our standard
standard of review isis de
ofreview de novo
novo and
and our
our scope
scope of
ofreview
review plenary.”
plenary."

Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.v. Riding,
Riding, 2013
2013 PA
PA Super
Super 141,
141, 68
68 A.3d
A.3d 990,
990, 993
993 (Pa.
(Pa. Super.
Super. Ct.
Ct. 2013).
2013).

2.2. Court’s
Court's Analysis
Analysis

Defendant
Defendant argues
argues that
that counts
counts seven
seven through
throughtwelve
twelve of
ofthe
the Bill
Bill of
ofInformation
Information should
should have
have

been
been dismissed
dismissed because
becausethe
the charges
charges were
were filed
filedbeyond
beyondthe
the statute
statute of
oflimitations.
limitations. Defendant,
Defendant,

through
through counsel,
counsel, filed
filed an
anOmnibus
Omnibus Pre-Trial
Pre-Trial Motion
Motionon
onJuly
July27,
27, 2023.
2023. Defendant
Defendantdid
didnot
notinclude
include

aaMotion
Motionto
to Dismiss
Dismiss Pursuant
Pursuanttoto 42
42 Pa.C.S.
Pa.C.S. §5552(a)
§5552(a) in
inhis
his Omnibus
Omnibus Pre-Trial
Pre-Trial Motion.
Motion.

Defendant,
Defendant, however,
however, attempted
attemptedtotoraise
raiseaamotion
motionseeking
seekingtoto dismiss
dismiss counts
counts seven
seventhrough
throughtwelve
twelve

of
ofthe
theBill
Bill of
ofInformation,
Information,pursuant
pursuanttoto42
42Pa.C.S.
Pa.C.S. §5552(a),
§5552(a),ininhis
hisbrief,
brief,which
whichwas
wasfiled
filedon
on

December
December 1,1,2023.
2023. Judge
JudgeCostanzo
Costanzodenied
deniedthe
themotion
motiontotodismiss
dismissby
byway
wayof
ofOpinion
Opinionand
andOrder
Order

dated
datedJanuary
January26,
26,2024.
2024. The
Thereasons
reasonsfor
forthe
theCourt’s
Court'sJanuary
January26,
26,2024
2024Order
Orderalready
alreadyappear
appearof
of

record
recordininsaid
saidOpinion
Opinionand
andOrder.
Order.Therefore,
Therefore,this
this Court
Courthereby
herebyincorporates
incorporatesthe
thesame
sameasasits
its

6
6Defendant
Defendantreferences
references“Direct
"DirectAppeal”
Appeal"exhibits;
exhibits;however,
however,no
noexhibits
exhibitswere
werefiled
filedwith
withthe
theWashington
WashingtonCounty
CountyClerk
Clerk
of
ofCourts
CourtsOffice
Officeregarding
regardingthe
the“Direct
"DirectAppeal”
Appeal"pleading.
pleading.

55
Pa.R.A.P.
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)
1925(a) Opinion and attaches it hereto.
hereto. For
For the reasons set
set forth in
in the January 26,
26,

2024 Opinion
Opinion and Order,
Order, this Court
Court respectfully submits
submits that
that its order
order be affirmed on the merits

and Defendant’s
Defendant's appeal
appeal be dismissed.
dismissed.

B.
B. Improper
Improper Venue
Venue and
and Lack
Lack of
of Subject
Subject Matter
Matter Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction

1.
1. Standard of Review
Review

“As
"As this question [regarding subject
subject matter
matter jurisdiction]
jurisdiction] is purely one
one of law,
law, our
our standard

of review
review is
is de
de novo,
novo, and our
our scope ofreview
review is plenary.”
plenary." Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.v. Jones,
Jones, 929 A.2d

205,
205, 211 (Pa.
(Pa. 2007)
2007) (internal
(internal citations omitted).
omitted).

“The
"The standard
standard of
of review
review for
for aa denial
denial of aa motion
motion for
for change
change of
of venue
venue is
is whether
whether there
there has
has

been
been an
an abuse
abuse of
of discretion
discretion on the
the part
part of the
the trial
trial judge.”
judge." Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.v. Devries,
Devries, 112
112 A.3d
A.3d

663, 666 (Pa.
663,666 (Pa. Super.
Super. 2015)
2015) (internal
(internal citations
citations omitted).
omitted).

2.
2. Court’s
Court's Analysis
Analysis

Defendant
Defendant next
next argues
argues that
that this
this Court
Court lacked
lacked subject
subject matter
matterjurisdiction
jurisdiction over
over the
the

prosecution
prosecution of
ofthe
the charges
charges stemming
stemming from
from conduct
conduct occurring
occurring in
in Allegheny
Allegheny County
County and,
and,

furthermore,
furthermore, venue
venue was
was improper
improper in
in Washington
Washington County.
County.

Defendant
Defendant filed
filed an
an Omnibus
Omnibus Pretrial
Pretrial Motion
Motion on
on July
July 27,
27, 2023,
2023, which
which included
included aa Motion
Motion

to
to Dismiss
Dismiss Improper
Improper Venue
Venue and
and Lack
Lack of
of Subject
Subject Matter
Matter Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction (Allegheny
(Allegheny County
County

Charges).
Charges). Judge
Judge Costanzo,
Costanzo, following
following the
the October
October 13,
13, 2023
2023 hearing,
hearing, denied
denied the
the motion
motion to
to dismiss
dismiss

by
by way
way of
ofOpinion
Opinion and
and Order
Order dated
dated January
January 26,
26, 2024.
2024. The
The reasons
reasons for
for the
the Court’s
Court's January
January 26,
26,

2024
2024 Order
Order already
already appear
appear of
ofrecord
record in
in said
said Opinion
Opinion and
and Order.
Order. Therefore,
Therefore, this
this Court
Court hereby
hereby

incorporates
incorporates the
the same
same as
as its
its Pa.R.A.P.
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)
1925(a) Opinion
Opinion and
and attaches
attaches itit hereto.
hereto. For
For the
the reasons
reasons

set
set forth
forth in
in the
the January
January 26,
26, 2024
2024 Opinion
Opinion and
and Order,
Order, this
this Court
Court respectfully
respectfully submits
submits that
that its
its order
order

be
be affirmed
affirmed on
on the
the merits
merits and
and Defendant’s
Defendant's appeal
appeal be
be dismissed.
dismissed.

66
C.
C. Warrantless
Warrantless Use
Use of
of Mobile
Mobile Tracking
Tracking Device
Device

Defendant
Defendant next
next appears
appears to argue in
in Section C of his Concise Statement
Statement that
that law
law

enforcement
enforcement utilized
utilized a mobile tracking device during its investigation
investigation without
without a warrant
warrant or court
court

order.
order. Defendant
Defendant initially
initially raised this argument
argument at
at trial.
trial.

Defendant
Defendant made
made an oral
oral motion prior
prior to the commencement
commencement of the second day of

trial
trial seeking dismissal
dismissal of the charges.
charges. Pretrial
Pretrial Motion Hr’g
Hr'g Tr.,
Tr., 5,
5, 4/10/24.
4/10/24. Defendant
Defendant asserted

that
that the
the evidence
evidence presented by the Commonwealth
Commonwealth to the jury on the first
first day of trial
trial

demonstrated that
that law
law enforcement
enforcement utilized
utilized a GPS
GPS tracking device during
during the course
course of the

investigation,
investigation, without
without first
first obtaining
obtaining aa warrant.
warrant. Defendant
Defendant sought
sought dismissal
dismissal of
of the
the charges
charges based
based

on
on the
the fruit
fruit of
of the
the poisonous
poisonous tree
tree doctrine.
doctrine. Defendant,
Defendant, in
in support
support of his
his oral
oral motion
motion for
for

immediate
immediate dismissal
dismissal of
of the
the charges,
charges, argued
argued that
that Agent
Agent Barna
Barna testified
testified at
at trial
trial that
that the
the Office
Office of
of

Attorney
Attorney General
General utilized
utilized aa GPS
GPS tracking
tracking device
device without
without obtaining
obtaining aa court
court order
order or
or warrant.
warrant.

Defendant’s
Defendant's argument
argument isis not
not supported
supported by
by the
the record
record evidence.
evidence.

Agent
Agent Barna,
Barna, during
during cross-examination,
cross-examination, testified
testified as
as follows:
follows:

Q:
Q: How
How are
are you
you doing,
doing, Agent
Agent Barna?
Barna?
A:
A: Good,
Good, sir.
sir. How
How are
are you?
you?
Q:
Q: All
All right.
right. First,
First, before
before we
we go
go any
any further,
further, you
you stated
stated that
that you
you had
had aa tracker
tracker
on
on the
the vehicle?
vehicle?
A:
A: Yes.
Yes.
Q:
Q: Did
Did you
you have
have aa warrant
warrant for
for the
the tracker?
tracker?
A:
A: Yes.
Yes.
Q:
Q: You
You did?
did?
A:
A: Yes.
Yes.
Q:
Q: Why
Why wasn’t
wasn't itit in
in the
the discovery?
discovery?
A:
A: We
We didn’t
didn't use
use itit as
as evidence
evidence for
for anything
anything other
otherthan
than furthering
furthering the
the
investigation.
investigation.

77
TT,
TT, vol.
vol. I, 136,
136, line 4-15,
4-15, 4/9/24.
4/9/24.

The
The Court,
Court, based on Defendant’s
Defendant's oral
oral motion,
motion, held an evidentiary hearing outside of the

jury during the second day of trial
trial to further develop the record regarding Defendant’s
Defendant's argument.
argument.

Agent
Agent Barna
Barna testified
testified at
at the hearing.
hearing. TT,
TT, vol.
vol. I,1, 37-206,
37-206, 4/9/24.
4/9/24. Agent
Agent Barna
Barna again testified that
that

the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General
General had obtained an appropriate court
court order
order under
under the

Wiretap Act
Act to place a tracking device on Defendant’s
Defendant's vehicle during the course of the

investigation.
investigation. Pretrial
Pretrial Motion Hr’g
Hr'g Tr.,
Tr., 22,
22, 4/10/24.
4/10/24. Agent
Agent Barna
Barna explained
explained that,
that, when
when

Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Office
Office of Attorney General
General narcotics
narcotics agents
agents utilize
utilize aa tracking device,
device, the
the agents
agents

“have
"have to
to have
have aa court
court order
order and
and appropriate
appropriate paperwork
paperwork with
with the
the Office of
of Attorney
Attorney General.
General. It’s
It's

aa very
very formal
formal process.
process. So,
So, yes,
yes, we
we had
had aa warrant
warrant signed
signed by
by aa judge.”
judge." Id.
Id. This
This Court
Court found
found

Agent
Agent Barna’s
Barna's testimony
testimony at
at the
the hearing
hearing to
to be
be credible.
credible. “A
"A fact-finder
fact-finder isis free
free to
to believe
believe all,
all, part,
part,

or
or none
none of
ofthe evidence
evidence presented.”
presented." Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.v. James,
James, 1223
1223 WDA
WDA 2014,
2014, 2016
2016 WL
WL

418146,
418146, at
at 22 (Pa.
(Pa. Super.
Super. Ct.
Ct. Feb.
Feb. 3,
3, 2016)
2016) (internal
(internal citations
citations omitted).
omitted). The
The fact-finder
fact-finder isis

exclusively
exclusively tasked
tasked with
with assessing
assessing the
the credibility
credibility of
ofthe
the witnesses
witnesses or
or evidence
evidence presented
presented at
at trial.
trial.

Id.
Id. (internal
(internal citations
citations omitted).
omitted).

Defendant
Defendant was
was permitted
permitted an
an opportunity
opportunity to
to cross-examine
cross-examine Agent
Agent Barna,
Barna, both
both at
at trial
trial and
and

then
then at
at the
the hearing
hearing regarding
regarding Defendant’s
Defendant's motion,
motion, regarding
regarding details
details surrounding
surrounding the
the warrant
warrant the
the

was
was signed
signed by
by aajudge.
judge. See
See TT.,
TT., vol.
vol. I,I, 4/9/24;
4/9/24; see
see also
also Pretrial
Pretrial Motion
Motion Hr’g
Hr'g Tr.,
Tr., 22,
22, 4/10/24.
4/10/24.

This
This Court
Court submits,
submits, based
based on
on the
the record
recordevidence,
evidence, that
that Defendant’s
Defendant's claim
claim that
that aa GPS
GPS tracking
tracking

device
device was
was utilized
utilized during
during the
the course
course of
ofthe
the investigation
investigation without
without aa warrant
warrant and/or
and/or court
court order
order isis

without
without merit.
merit. Furthermore,
Furthermore, the
the evidence
evidence presented
presented by
by the
the Commonwealth
Commonwealth to
to the
thejury
jury did
did not
not

include
include testimony
testimony or
or evidence
evidence that
that aa GPS
GPS tracking
tracking device
device was
was utilized
utilized by
by law
law enforcement
enforcement

during
during the
the six
six controlled
controlledbuys
buys which
whichresulted
resulted in
in the
the filing
filing of
ofcharges
charges against
against Defendant.
Defendant.

88
Defendant’s
Defendant's claim
claim is not
not supported by the record and should be dismissed.
dismissed.

D.
D. Use
Use of Hearsay Testimony at
at Preliminary Hearing

1.
1. Standard
Standard of
of Review
Review

“The
"The evidentiary sufficiency of the Commonwealth's
Commonwealth's prima
prima facie
facie case
case for
for aa charged
charged crime
crime

is
is aa question
question of law
law for
for which our
our standard
standard of
of review
review is
is de
de novo
novo and
and our
our scope
scope of
ofreview
review isis

plenary.”
plenary." Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.v. Harris,
Harris, 2022
2022 PA
PA Super
Super 1,1,269
269 A.3d
A.3d 534, 539 (Pa.
534,539 (Pa. Super.
Super. Ct.
Ct. 2022),
2022),

reargument
reargument denied
denied (Mar.
(Mar. 14,
14, 2022),
2022), appeal
appeal granted,
granted, 285
285 A.3d
A.3d 883
883 (Pa.
(Pa. 2022),
2022), and
and affd,
aft'd, 315
315

A.3d
A.3d 26
26 (Pa.
(Pa. 2024),
2024), citing
citing to
to Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.v. Wroten,
Wroten, 257
257 A.3d
A.3d 734,
734, 742
742 (Pa.
(Pa. Super.
Super. 2021)
2021)

(citation
( citation omitted).
omitted).

2.
2. Court’s
Court's Analysis
Analysis

Defendant
Defendant appears
appears to
to argue
argue that
that his
his constitutional
constitutional rights
rights were
were deprived
deprived because
because the
the

magisterial
magisterial district
districtjudge
judge relied
relied solely
solely on
on hearsay
hearsay testimony
testimony atat the
the preliminary
preliminary hearing
hearing stage.
stage.

Defendant
Defendant raised
raised this
this argument
argument in
in aapleading
pleading titled
titled “Motion(s)-In-Limine”
"Motion(s)-In-Limine" which
whichwas
was filed
filed on
on

March
March 7,7, 2024.
2024. In
In that
thatpro
pro se
se motion
motion in
in limine,
limine, Defendant
Defendant challenged
challengedthe
the pretrial
pretrial finding
finding that
thatthe
the

Commonwealth
Commonwealthpresented
presented evidence
evidenceto
to establish
establish aaprima
prima facie
facie case.
case.

This
This Court
Courtheld
heldaahearing
hearing on
onMarch
March 12,
12, 2024
2024relating
relatingtoto Defendant’s
Defendant's motion.
motion. ItItisis well
well

established
establishedunder
underPennsylvania
Pennsylvanialaw
lawthat
thatthe
the Commonwealth
Commonwealthmay
maypresent
presentadditional
additional evidence
evidenceto
to

establish
establishthat
thatthe
the defendant
defendanthas
has committed
committedthe
theelements
elements of
ofthe
theoffenses
offenses charged.
charged. See
See

Commonwealth
Commonwealthv.v. Dantzler,
Dantzler, 135
135A.3d
A.3d 1109
1109(Pa.Super.
(Pa.Super.2016);
2016);see
seealso
also Comm
Commv.v. Karlson,
Karlson,449
449Pa.
Pa.

Super.
Super. 378
378 (1996).
(1996). At
Atthe
thecourt
courtproceeding
proceedingon
onMarch
March 12,
12,2024,
2024,the
theCommonwealth
Commonwealthsubmitted
submitted

the
thetranscript
transcriptof
ofthe
theOctober
October 13,
13,2023
2023 Omnibus
OmnibusPretrial
PretrialHearing
Hearingasasadditional
additionalproof
proofthat
thataaprim a
prima

facie
faciecase
caseexists.
exists. See
SeeMotion
MotionininLimine
LimineHr’g,
Hr'g,3/12/2024,
3/12/2024,Commonwealth’s
Commonwealth'sEx.
Ex.7.7. The
Thetranscript
transcript

included
includedthe
thetestimony
testimonyof
ofPennsylvania
PennsylvaniaOffice
Officeof
ofAttorney
AttorneyGeneral
GeneralNarcotics
NarcoticsAgent
AgentJoseph
Joseph

99
Barna,
Barna, Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General
General Narcotics Agent
Agent Justin
Justin Shaffer,
Shaffer, Monroeville

Police Detective Steven Maritz,
Maritz, City of Washington Police Officer
Officer Joseph Fichter,
Fichter, Washington

County Drug Task Force Detective Richard Gluth,
Gluth, City of Washington Police Detective Dan

Eberman,
Eberman, and City of Washington Police Sergeant
Sergeant Kent
Kent Mitchell.
Mitchell. Defendant
Defendant was
was afforded an

opportunity to cross-examine each witness,
witness, through counsel,
counsel, at
at the October
October 13,
13, 2023 hearing.
hearing.

See Omnibus
Omnibus Pre-Trial
Pre-Trial Hr’g
Hr'g Tr.,
Tr., 47-58;
47-58; 67-70;
67-70; 82-86;
82-86; 87-88;
87-88; 116-24;
116-24; 126-127;
126-127; 135-139;
135-139; 146-
146-

149;
149; 158-
158- 165,
165, 10/13/2023.
10/13/2023. This
This Court
Court denied the motion by way
way of Memorandum
Memorandum and Order
Order

dated
dated April
April 1,
1, 2024.
2024.

The
The reasons
reasons for
for the
the Court’s
Court's April
April 1,
1, 2024
2024 Order
Order already
already appear
appear of
ofrecord in
in said
said

Memorandum
Memorandum and
and Order.
Order. Therefore,
Therefore, this
this Court
Court hereby
hereby incorporates
incorporates the
the same
same as
as its
its Pa.R.A.P.
Pa.R.A.P.

1925(a)
1925(a) Memorandum
Memorandum and
and attaches
attaches itit hereto.
hereto. For
For the
the reasons
reasons set
set forth
forth in
in the
the April
April 1,
1, 2024
2024

Opinion
Opinion and
and Order,
Order, this
this Court
Court respectfully
respectfully submits
submits that
that its
its order
order be
be affirmed
affirmed on
on the
the merits
merits and
and

Defendant’s
Defendant's appeal
appeal be
be dismissed.
dismissed.

E.
E. Defendant
Defendant Was
Was Denied
Denied and
and Precluded
Precluded From
From Exculpatory
Exculpatory Evidence
Evidence of
of Impeachment
Impeachment
During
During Preliminary
Preliminary Hearing
Hearing

1.1. Standard
Standard of
ofReview
Review

“The
"The evidentiary
evidentiary sufficiency
sufficiency of
ofthe
the Commonwealth's
Commonwealth's prima
prima facie
facie case
case for
for aa charged
charged crime
crime

isis aa question
question of
oflaw
law for
for which
which our
our standard
standard of
ofreview
review isis de
de novo
novo and
and our
our scope
scope of
ofreview
review isis

plenary.”
plenary." Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.v. Harris,
Harris, 2022
2022 PA
PA Super
Super 1,1, 269
269 A.3d
A.3d 534,
534, 539
539 (Pa.
(Pa. Super.
Super. Ct.
Ct. 2022),
2022),

reargument
reargument denied
denied (Mar.
(Mar. 14,
14, 2022),
2022), appeal
appeal granted,
granted, 285
285 A.3d
A.3d 883
883 (Pa.
(Pa. 2022),
2022), and
and affd,
aff'd, 315
315

A.3d
A.3d 26
26 (Pa.
(Pa. 2024),
2024), citing
citing to
to Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.v. Wroten,
Wroten, 257
257 A.3d
A.3d 734,
734, 742
742 (Pa.
(Pa. Super.
Super. 2021)
2021)

(citation
( citation omitted).
omitted).

10
10
2.
2. Court's Analysis
Court’s Analysis

to relevant
citation to
no citation
with no
argument, with
legal argument,
undeveloped legal
entirely undeveloped
an entirely
forth an
sets forth
Defendant sets
Defendant relevant

the preliminary
at the
evidence at
exculpatory evidence
suppressed exculpatory
Commonwealth suppressed
the Commonwealth
that the
authority, that
legal authority,
legal preliminary

hearing certain witnesses
calling certain
not calling
by not
stage by
hearing stage testify at
to testify
witnesses to that hearing.
at that Defendant argues
hearing. Defendant that he
argues that he

Commonwealth witnesses
certain Commonwealth
cross-examine certain
to cross-examine
opportunity to
fair opportunity
and fair
full and
afforded aa full
not afforded
was not
was witnesses

cites to
Defendant cites
hearing. Defendant
preliminary hearing.
the preliminary
at the
testify at
to testify
called to
not called
were not
they were
because they
because to

Commonwealth Bazemore, 531
Commonwealth v.v. Bazemore, Pa. 582
531 Pa. (1992) in
582 (1992) support of
in support his argument.
ofhis argument. In Bazemore, the
In Bazemore, the

from aapreliminary
testimony from
priortestimony
ofprior
transcript of
the transcript
that the
held that
Court held
Supreme Court
Pennsylvania Supreme
Pennsylvania preliminary

wherethe
trialwhere
admissible atattrial
notadmissible
was not
witness was
Commonwealthwitness
unavailable Commonwealth
anunavailable
ofan
hearing of
hearing the

regardingthis
evidenceregarding
impeachmentevidence
vitalimpeachment
defensevital
thedefense
disclosetotothe
to disclose
failedto
Commonwealthfailed
Commonwealth this

onBazemore
relianceon
Defendant'sreliance
hearing. Defendant’s
preliminaryhearing.
thepreliminary
priortoto the
witnessprior
witness Bazemoretotosupport hisclaim
supporthis claim

isisentirely
entirelymisplaced. assertionsininthis
Defendant'sassertions
misplaced. Defendant’s sectionare
thissection notreasoned
arenot anddeveloped
reasonedand legal
developedlegal

thatthese
suggeststhat
Courtsuggests
ThisCourt
authority.This
legalauthority.
relevantlegal
citationstotorelevant
withcitations
supportedwith
argumentssupported
arguments these

ofdevelopment.
lackof
forlack
waivedfor
claimisiswaived
thisclaim
andthis
reviewable,and
notreviewable,
arenot
assertionsare
assertions development.

Furthermore, Defendantchallenged
above,Defendant
SectionDDabove,
forthininSection
setforth
Furthermore,asasset sufficiencyof
thesufficiency
challengedthe the
ofthe

transcriptof
thetranscript
submittedthe
Commonwealthsubmitted
TheCommonwealth
hearing. The
preliminaryhearing.
thepreliminary
presentedatatthe
evidencepresented
evidence of

caseexists.
faciecase
primafacie
thata aprima
proofthat
additionalproof
Hearingasasadditional
PretrialHearing
OmnibusPretrial
2023Omnibus
13,2023
October13,
theOctober
the exists.

Commonwealth'sEx.
3/12/2024,Commonwealth’s
Hr'g,3/12/2024,
LimineHr’g,
MotionininLimine
SeeMotion
See Athe
7. At
Ex.7. October13,
theOctober 13,2023
2023

(7)law
seven(7)
testimonyofofseven
thetestimony
presentedthe
Commonwealthpresented
theCommonwealth
Hearing,the
PretrialHearing,
OmnibusPretrial
Omnibus law

enforcement officers,including
enforcementofficers, includingPennsylvania OfficeofofAttorney
PennsylvaniaOffice NarcoticsAgent
GeneralNarcotics
AttorneyGeneral Agent

JustinShaffer
AgentJustin
NarcoticsAgent
GeneralNarcotics
AttorneyGeneral
OfficeofofAttorney
PennsylvaniaOffice
Barna,Pennsylvania
JosephBarna,
Joseph Shaffer,

Monroeville CityofofWashington
Maritz,City
StevenMaritz,
DetectiveSteven
PoliceDetective
MonroevillePolice OfficerJoseph
PoliceOfficer
WashingtonPolice Fichter,
JosephFichter,

WashingtonPolice
CityofofWashington
Gluth,City
RichardGluth,
DetectiveRichard
ForceDetective
taskForce
Drugtask
CountyDrug
WashingtonCounty
Washington Police

1111
Detective Dan Eberman,
Eberman, and City of Washington Police Sergeant
Sergeant Kent
Kent Mitchell.
Mitchell. Defendant
Defendant was
was

afforded
afforded an
an opportunity to
to cross-examine
cross-examine each
each witness,
witness, through
through counsel,
counsel, at
at the
the October
October 113,
3, 2023
2023

hearing.
hearing. See
See Omnibus
Omnibus Pre-Trial
Pre-Trial Hr’g
Hr'g Tr.,
Tr., 47-58;
47-58; 67-70;
67-70; 82-86;
82-86; 87-88;
87-88; 116-24;
116-24; 126-127;
126-127; 135-
135-

139;
139; 146-149;
146-149; 158-
158- 165,
165, 10/13/2023.
10/13/2023.

Defendant’s
Defendant's claim
claim lacks
lacks merit
merit and
and should
should be
be dismissed.
dismissed.

F.
F. The
The use
use of
of hearsay
hearsay statements
statements at
at Preliminary
Preliminary Hearing
Hearing relating
relating to
to Confidential
Confidential
Informants
Informants aa Direct
Direct Violation
Violation and
and Deprivation
Deprivation of
of Defendant’s
Defendant's Constitutional
Constitutional Rights
Rights

1.1. Standard
Standard of
ofReview
Review

“The
"The evidentiary
evidentiary sufficiency
sufficiency of
ofthe
the Commonwealth's
Commonwealth's prima
prima facie
facie case
case for
for aa charged
chargedcrime
crime

isis aa question
question of
oflaw
law for
for which
which our
our standard
standard of
ofreview
review isis de
de novo
novo and
and our
our scope
scope of
ofreview
review isis

plenary.”
plenary." Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.v. Harris,
Harris, 2022
2022 PA
PA Super
Super 1,1,269
269 A.3d
A.3d 534,
534, 539
539 (Pa.
(Pa. Super.
Super. Ct.
Ct. 2022),
2022),

reargument
reargument denied
denied (Mar.
(Mar. 14,
14, 2022),
2022), appeal
appeal granted,
granted, 285
285 A.3d
A.3d 883
883 (Pa.
(Pa. 2022),
2022), and
and affd,
aft'd, 315
315

A.3d
A.3d26
26 (Pa.
(Pa. 2024),
2024), citing
citingtoto Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.v. Wroten,
Wroten, 257
257 A.3d
A.3d 734,
734, 742
742 (Pa.
(Pa. Super.
Super. 2021)
2021)

(citation
(citationomitted).
omitted).

2.2. Court’s
Court'sAnalysis
Analysis

Defendant
Defendantnext
nextargues
arguesthat
thatititwas
wasaaviolation
violationof
ofhis
hisconstitutional
constitutionalrights
rightsfor
forthe
the

magisterial
magisterialdistrict
districtjudge
judgetotorely
relyon
onhearsay
hearsaystatements,
statements,testified
testifiedtotoby
byOfficer
OfficerFichter,
Fichter,relating
relatingtoto

confidential
confidentialinformants
informants(hereinafter "C.I.")utilized
(hereinafter“C.I.”) utilizedby
bylaw
lawenforcement
enforcementininthis
thiscase.
case.

Defendant'sargument
Defendant’s argumentisissimilar
similartotothe
theone
oneset
setforth
forthininSection
SectionDDwhere
wherehe
hechallenges the
challengesthe

use
useof
ofhearsay
hearsaytestimony
testimonyatataapreliminary
preliminaryhearing.
hearing. Defendant
Defendantinitially
initiallychallenged
challengedthe
theuse
useof
of

hearsay
hearsayatatthe
thepreliminary
preliminaryhearing
hearingininaapleading
pleadingtitled
titled“Motion(s)-In-Limine”
"Motion(s)-In-Liminewhich
whichwas
wasfiled
filedon
on

March
March7,7,2024.
2024. The
TheCourt
Courtissued
issuedaaMemorandum
Memorandumand
andOrder
Orderdated
datedApril
April1,1,2024.
2024. The
Thereasons
reasons

for
forthe
theCourt’s
Court'sApril
April1,1,2024
2024Order
Orderalready
alreadyappear
appearofofrecord
record ininsaid
saidMemorandum
Memorandumand
andOrder.
Order.

1212
Therefore, hereby incorporates
Court hereby
this Court
Therefore, this same as
the same
incorporates the its Pa.R.A.P.
as its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) and
Memorandum and
1925(a) Memorandum

attaches it hereto.
attaches hereto.

Defendant, "Direct Appeal”
his “Direct
in his
Defendant, in further argues
brief, further
Appeal" brief, that the
argues that identity of
the identity the confidential
of the confidential

informants 27,
July 27,
on July
Motion on
Pretrial Motion
Omnibus Pretrial
an Omnibus
filed an
Defendant filed
revealed. Defendant
been revealed.
have been
should have
informants should

Judge Costanzo,
Identity. Judge
Informant Identity.
Confidential Informant
Reveal Confidential
to Reveal
Motion to
included aa Motion
which included
2023, which
2023, Costanzo,

following hearing, denied
2023 hearing,
13, 2023
October 13,
the October
following the motion to
the motion
denied the by way
to by ofOpinion
way of and Order
Opinion and Order

dated reasons for
The reasons
2024. The
26, 2024.
January 26,
dated January Court's January
the Court’s
for the 26, 2024
January 26, Order already
2024 Order appear of
already appear of

as its
same as
the same
incorporates the
hereby incorporates
Courthereby
this Court
Therefore, this
Order. Therefore,
and Order.
Opinion and
said Opinion
in said
record in
record its

attaches itithereto.
and attaches
Opinion and
1925(a) Opinion
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)
Pa.R.A.P. hereto.

For well asas
2024, asaswell
April 1,1,2024,
datedApril
Orderdated
and Order
Memorandumand
theMemorandum
forthininthe
set forth
reasons set
thereasons
Forthe

theJanuary
the 2024 Opinion
26, 2024
January26, Order,this
andOrder,
Opinionand Courtrespectfully
this Court thatits
submitsthat
respectfullysubmits ordersbe
itsorders be

bedismissed.
appealbe
Defendant'sappeal
andDefendant’s
meritsand
themerits
onthe
affirmedon
affirmed dismissed.

ShouldHave
GapsShould
CustodyGaps
ofCustody
Chainof
CocaineChain
Fabrication,Cocaine
andFabrication,
Tamperingand
EvidenceTampering
G. Evidence
G. Have
Deemed Chain to be Deficient
Deemed Chain to be Deficient

1.1. Standardof
Standard ofReview
Review

The of
abuseof
anabuse
foran
evidenceisisfor
ofevidence
admissionof
theadmission
relativetotothe
reviewrelative
ofreview
"standardof
The“standard

discretion." Commonwealth
discretion.” Commonwealthv.v.Feliciano, PASuper
2013PA
Feliciano,2013 117,
Super1 A.3d19,
67A.3d
17, 67 27(Pa.
19,27 Super.Ct.
(Pa.Super. Ct.

2013).
2013).

2.2. Court'sAnalysis
Court’s Analysis

Defendant custodyregarding
chainofofcustody
thechain
gapsininthe
thatgaps
arguesthat
Defendantargues evidencepresented
theevidence
regardingthe presentedatat

deemedtotobebedeficient.
beendeemed
havebeen
shouldhave
trialshould
trial deficient.

"While burdenofofdemonstrating
theburden
bearsthe
Commonwealthbears
theCommonwealth
"Whilethe reasonable
somereasonable
demonstratingsome

connection thesanctity
establishthe
notestablish
neednot
evidence,ititneed
trueevidence,
thetrue
andthe
exhibitsand
profferedexhibits
theproffered
betweenthe
connectionbetween sanctity

notproduce
neednot
Commonwealthneed
TheCommonwealth
certainty.The
moralcertainty.
beyonda amoral
exhibitsbeyond
ofofitsitsexhibits produceevery individual
everyindividual

1313
who
who came
came into
into contact
contact with
with an
an item
item of
of evidence,
evidence, nor
nor must
must it
it eliminate
eliminate every
every hypothetical
hypothetical

possibility of tampering.” Commonwealth v.v. Cugnini,
tampering." Commonwealth Cugnini, 307 Pa.Super.
Pa.Super. 113 (1982)
(1982) (internal
(internal

citations
citations omitted).
omitted). A
A completed
completed chain
chain is
is “not
"not required
required so
so long
long as
as the
the Commonwealth's
Commonwealth's evidence,
evidence,

direct
direct and
and circumstantial,
circumstantial, establishes
establishes aa reasonable
reasonable inference
inference that
that the
the identity
identity and
and condition
condition of
of the
the

exhibits
exhibits have
have remained
remained the
the same
same from
from the
the time
time they
they were
were first
first received
received until
until the
the time
time of
oftrial.
trial.

Any
Any gaps
gaps in
in testimony
testimony regarding
regarding the
the chain
chain of
ofcustody
custody go
go to
to the
the weight
weight to
to be
be given
given the
the testimony,
testimony,

not
not to
to its
its admissibility.”
admissibility." Id.
Id.

The
The Commonwealth
Commonwealth presented
presented extensive
extensive testimony
testimony and
and evidence
evidence at
at trial
trial demonstrating
demonstrating

the
the chain
chain of
ofcustody
custody of
ofthe
the cocaine
cocaine relating
relating to
to the
the six
six controlled
controlled buys.
buys.

I.I. March
March 27,
27, 2019
2019 Controlled
Controlled Buy
Buy

On
OnMarch
March 27,
27, 2019,
2019, the
the record
record evidence
evidence demonstrates
demonstrates that
that law
law enforcement
enforcement checked
checkedthe
the

C.I.’s
C.l.'s vehicle
vehicle and
andperson.
person. TT,
TT, vol.
vol. I,I, 62,
62, 4/9/2024.
4/9/2024. Agent
AgentJospeh
JospehBarna
Barnatestified
testified that
that law
law

enforcement
enforcement followed
followedthe
the C.I.
C.I. toto the
the controlled
controlledbuy
buy location,
location, Garden
GardenCity
City Plaza,
Plaza, and
and observed
observed

Defendant
Defendantget
getout
outof
ofhis
hisgirlfriend’s
girlfriend'svehicle
vehicleand
andenter
enterinto
intothe
theC.I.’s
C.I.'svehicle.
vehicle. Id.
Id. atat59,
59, 74.
74.

Defendant
Defendantthen
thenexited
exitedthe
thecar
carand
andlaw
lawenforcement
enforcementfollowed
followedthe
theC.I.,
C.I.,with
withconstant
constantsurveillance,
surveillance,

totoaapredetermined
predeterminedlocation.
location. Id.
Id.atat75.
75. The
TheC.I.
C.I.handed
handedover
overwhat
whatlooked
lookedtotobe
beaahalf
halfounce
ounceof
of

cocaine.
cocaine. Id.
Id.atat75-76.
75-76. Agent
AgentBarna
Barnacredibly
crediblytestified
testifiedthat
thatno
noone
oneelse
elseinteracted
interactedwith
withthe
theC.I.
C.I.oror

went
wentinto
intothe
theC.I.’s
C.I.'svehicle.
vehicle. Id.
Id.atat76.
76. The
Thesubstance
substancewas
wasthen
thentaken
takenimmediately
immediatelytotothe
the

Monroeville
MonroevillePolice
PoliceDepartment.
Department. Id.
Id.atat81;
81;see
seealso
alsoJury
JuryTrial,
Trial,4/9/2024,
4/9/2024,Commonwealth’s
Commonwealth'sEx.
Ex.3.3.

The
Thecocaine
cocainewas
wasentered
enteredonto
ontothe
theevidence
evidencereport
reportlog.
log. Id.
Id.atat83-84;
83-84;see
seealso
alsoJury
JuryTrial,
Trial,4/9/2024,
4/9/2024,

Commonwealth’s
Commonwealth'sEx.
Ex.4.4. The
Theevidence
evidenceseized
seizedfrom
fromthe
thecontrolled
controlledbuy
buywas
wasput
putininan
anenvelope
envelope

and
andthen
thenthe
theenvelope
envelopewas
wassealed
sealedwith
withevidence
evidencetape
tapethat
thatisistamperproof.
tamperproof. Id.
Id.atat131-132.
131-132. The
The

1414
evidence remained sealed after it was
was packaged on March 27,
27, 2019.
2019. Id.
Id. at
at 132;
132; see also Jury

Trial,
Trial, 4/9/2024,
4/9/2024, Commonwealth’s
Commonwealth's Ex.
Ex. 12.
12.

II.
II. June 13,
13, 2019 Controlled Buy
Buy

On
On June
June 13,
13, 2024,
2024, Agent
Agent Bama
Barna searched
searched the C.I.’s
C.I.'s vehicle
vehicle and
and person.
person. Id.
Id. at
at 91-92.
91-92. The
The

C.I.
C.I. was
was then
then followed to
to the
the parking
parking lot
lot and
and was
was continued
continued to
to be
be surveilled.
surveilled. Id.
Id. at
at 97.
97.

Defendant
Defendant arrived
arrived at
at the
the Speedway
Speedway gas
gas station
station in
in Monroeville.
Monroeville. Id.
Id. at
at 101.
101. He
He got
got into
into the
the C.I.’s
C.I.'s

vehicle
vehicle for
for less
less than
than aa minute,
minute, exited,
exited, and
and then
then drove
drove away.
away. Id.
Id. The
The record
record evidence
evidence

demonstrates
demonstrates that
that the
the C.I.
C.I. was
was then
then followed
followed to
to aa predetermined
predetermined location
location where
where the
the C.I.
C.I. was
was

searched
searched and
and provided
provided the
the controlled
controlled substance
substance to
to law
law enforcement.
enforcement. Id.
Id. at
at 103.
103. Agent
Agent Bama
Barna

testified
testified that
that no
no one
one else
else interacted
interacted with
with the
the C.I.
C.I. or
or went
went into
into the
the C.I.’s
C.I.'s vehicle.
vehicle. Id.
Id. at
at 1 1-1 12.
111-112.

The
The substance
substance was
was then
then taken
taken back
back to
to Monroeville
Monroeville Police
Police Department.
Department. Id.
Id. atat 105;
105; see
see also
also Jury
Jury

Trial,
Trial, 4/9/2024,
4/9/2024, Commonwealth’s
Commonwealth's Ex.
Ex. 7
7.. The
The controlled
controlled substance
substance was
was placed
placed in
in aa sealed
sealed

envelope
envelope and
and entered
entered into
into evidence
evidence that
that day.
day. Id.
Id. at
at 108,
108, 133;
133; see
see also
also Jury
Jury Trial,
Trial, 4/9/2024,
4/9/2024,

Commonwealth’s
Commonwealth's Ex.
Ex. 13.
13.

III.
III. July17.
July 17, 2019
2019 Controlled
ControlledBuy
Buy

On
OnJuly
July 17,
17, 2019,
2019, aacontrolled
controlledbuy
buytook
tookplace
place atatthe
theExxon
Exxonnear
nearthe
thezoo
zoo in
inAllegheny
Allegheny

County.
County. Id.
Id. atat 115-116.
115-116. The
Thedetectives
detectives searched
searchedthe
theC.I.’s
C.I.'sperson
personand
andvehicle.
vehicle. Id.
Id. atat 113-114.
113-114.

The
The detectives
detectives then
thenfollowed
followedthe
theC.I.
C.I. totothe
thelocation.
location. Id.
Id. atat 118. The
118. TheC.I.
C.I. did
didnot
notinteract
interactwith
with

anyone
anyoneelse
elsebesides
besides Defendant.
Defendant. Id.
Id. atat 122-123.
122-123. The
Thecontrolled
controlledbuy
buyoccurred
occurredand
andthe
theC.I.
C.I.

returned
returnedtotoaapredetermined
predeterminedlocation.
location. Id.
Id.atat 123.
123. The
Thesuspected
suspectedcocaine
cocainewas
wascollected
collectedby
bylaw
law

enforcement,
enforcement,placed
placedininaasealed
sealedevidence
evidenceenvelope
envelopeand
andentered
enteredinto
intoevidence
evidencewith
withthe
the

Monroeville
MonroevillePolice
PoliceDepartment
Departmenton
onthe
thesame
sameday.
day. Id.
Id.atat 125,
125, 134-135;
134-135;see
seealso
alsoJury
JuryTrial,
Trial,

4/9/2024,
4/9/2024,Commonwealth’s
Commonwealth'sEx.
Ex. 10
10and
and14.
14.

1515
IV.
IV. Evidence Maintained at
at Monroeville Police Department
Department

Detective Robert
Robert Renk testified that
that the evidence from
from the March 27,
27, 2019,
2019, June
June 13,
13,

2019 and July 17,
17, 2019 controlled buys
buys were
were sealed
sealed in envelopes
envelopes with
with tamperproof evidence

tape.
tape. Id.
Id. at
at 278.
278. Detective
Detective Renk
Renk further
further testified
testified that
that evidence
evidence maintained
maintained at
at the
the Monroeville
Monroeville

Police
Police Department
Department was
was placed
placed in
in aa “slam
"slam locker,”
locker," which
which locks
locks after
after itit isis shut.
shut. Id.
Id. at
at 277.
277. The
The

slam
slam locker
locker can
can only
only be
be opened
opened by
by the
the evidence
evidence custodian
custodian from
from inside
inside the
the evidence
evidence room.
room. Id.
Id.

Once
Once closed,
closed, the
the slam
slam locker
locker cannot
cannot be
be opened
opened from
from the
the outside.
outside. Id.
Id. The
The evidence
evidence remains
remains in
in the
the

evidence
evidence room
room until
until itit isis signed
signed out.
out. Id.
Id. at
at 275-276.
275-276.

V.
V. Evidence
Evidence Transferred
Transferred to
to Washington
Washington County
County District
District Attorney
Attorney Drug
Drug Task
Task Force
Force
Office
Office

Agent
Agent Barna
Barna testified
testified that,
that, on
on February
February 4,
4, 2021,
2021, he
he signed
signed the
the three
three items
items of
ofevidence
evidence out
out

of
ofthe
the Monroeville
Monroeville Police
Police Department
Department evidence
evidence room.
room. Id.
Id. atat 87.
87. Agent
Agent Barna
Barna drove
drove the
the

evidence
evidence down
down to
to Washington
Washington County
County where
where he
he immediately
immediately signed
signed and
and completed
completed aa form
form

transferring
transferring the
the evidence
evidence over
over to
to Detective
Detective Fichter.
Fichter. Id.
Id. atat 88.
88. Detective
Detective Fichter
Fichter also
also sisigned
gn ed the
the

form.
form. Id.,-
Id.; see
see also
also Jury
Jury Trial,
Trial, 4/9/2024,
4/9/2024, Commonwealth’s
Commonwealth's Ex.
Ex. 11.
11.

Detective’
Detective' Fichter
Fichtertestified
testifiedthat,
that, on
onFebruary
February4,4, 2021,
2021,Agent
AgentBarna
Barnabrought
broughtthe
the evidence
evidence

from
fromthe
theMarch
March 27,
27, 2019,
2019, June
June 13,
13, 2019
2019 and
andJuly
July 17,
17, 2019
2019 controlled
controlledbuys
buystotothe
theWashington
Washington

County
CountyDrug
DrugTask
TaskForce
Forceoffice
officewhere
whereDetective
DetectiveFichter
Fichterthen
thentook
tookcustody
custodyof
ofit.it. TT,
TT, vol.
vol. II,
II,472,
472,

4/10/2024.
4/10/2024. After
Aftertaking
takingcustody
custodyof
ofthe
theevidence,
evidence,Detective
DetectiveFichter
Fichterplaced
placedevidence
evidencetags
tagson
onthe
the

items
items and
andthen
thenhe
heplaced
placedthe
theevidence
evidenceininthe
thetemporary
temporaryholding
holdinglocker.
locker. Id.
Id. Detective
DetectiveFichter
Fichter

explained
explainedthat
thatthere
thereisisaalog
logthat
thathas
hastotobeen
beencompleted
completedwhen
whenevidence
evidenceisisplaced
placedininthe
thetemporary
temporary

holding
holdinglocker.
locker. Id.
Id. atat466.
466. He
Heexplained
explainedthat
thataavery
veryrudimentary
rudimentarylog
logisisutilized
utilizedwhich
whichincludes
includes

the
theincident
incidentnumber,
number,the
theofficer’s
officer'sname,
name,and
andaashort
shortdescription
descriptionof
ofthe
theevidence
evidencethat
thatisisbeing
being

placed
placedininthe
thetemporary
temporarylocker.
locker. Id.
Id.atat467.
467. Detective
DetectiveFichter
Fichtertestified
testifiedthat
thatthe
theevidence
evidencereceived
received

16
16
from
from Agent
Agent Barna was
was placed in
in the temporary locker and logged onto a log
log sheet
sheet to denotate

that
that he received three evidence bags
bags relating to Jason Woodall's
oodall's case from
from the Attorney

General’s
General's Office.
Office. Id.
Id. at
at 468;
468; see also Jury Trial,
Trial, 4/10/2024,
4/10/2024, Commonwealth’s
Commonwealth's Ex.
Ex. 25.
25. Since

there was
was no incident,
incident, it was
was placed into the temporary locker
locker on the same
same day and time that
that

Agent
Agent Barna dropped it off.
off. Id.
Id. at
at 472.
472.

Detective Richard Gluth,
Gluth, director of the Washington
Washington County District
District Attorney Drug
Drug Task

Force,
Force, testified at
at trial.
trial. TT,
TT, vol.
vol. Ill,
III, 681-747,
681-747, 4/11/2024.
1/2024. Part
Part of Detective Gluth’s
Gluth's duties
duties

include serving
serving as
as an evidence
evidence custodian.
custodian. Id.
Id. at
at 682.
682. Generally,
Generally, Detective
Detective Gluth either directly

signs
signs the
the packaged item
item into
into evidence
evidence or
or at
at his
his next
next available
available opportunity,
opportunity, withdraws
withdraws the
the

evidence
evidence from
from the
the receiving
receiving locker.
locker. Id.
Id. He
He examines
examines it,
it, corrects
corrects any
any mistakes
mistakes made
made on
on it,
it, and
and

ensures
ensures its
its packaged
packaged properly
properly and
and labeled
labeled properly.
properly. Id.
Id. at
at 682-683.
682-683. He
He then
then completes
completes an
an

evidence
evidence log,
log, which
which lists
lists the
the items
items of
of evidence
evidence and
and some
some basic
basic information
infonnation on
on the
the evidence
evidence log.
log.

Id.
Id. at
at 683.
683. Detective
Detective Gluth
Gluth then
then enters
enters the
the evidence
evidence into
into the
the BEAST,
BEAST, aa state
state computer
computer system
system

used
used to
to log
log evidence
evidence for
for laboratory
laboratory analysis.
analysis. Id.
Id. After
After pre-log
pre-log isis completed,
completed, Detective
Detective Gluth
Gluth

signs
signs itit into
into evidence
evidence with
with the
the date
date and
and places
places itit into
into their
their evidence
evidence room.
room. Id.
Id.

The
The evidence
evidence received
received by
by the
the Washington
Washington County
County Drug
Drug Task
Task Force,
Force, from
from Agent
Agent Barna
Barna

on
on February
February 4,
4, 2021,
2021, was
was assigned
assigned another
another label
label with
with Washington
Washington County’s
County's incident
incident number.
number. Id.
Id.

at
at 684;
684; see
see also
also Jury
Jury Trial,
Trial, 4/1 1/2024, Commonwealth’s
4/11/2024, Commonwealth's Ex.
Ex. 37.
37. The
The evidence
evidence stayed
stayed in
in the
the

temporary
temporary secured

Detective
Detective Gluth

into
secured locker
locker from

Gluth entered

into evidence,
from February

entered all

evidence, Gluth
Gluth placed
February 4,

all three

placed the
4, 2021

three items

the evidence
2021 to

items into
to February
February 12,

into evidence

evidence in
evidence on

in aa box
12, 2021.
2021. Id.

on February

box with
Id. at

February 12,

with the
at 689-690.

12, 2021.

the completed
completed lab
689-690.

2021. Id. Once

lab submission
I.
Once entered
entered

submission reports
reports for
for

purposes
purposes of
oftransferring
transferring the
the evidence
evidence to
to the
the crime
crime lab
lab for
fortesting.
testing. Id.
Id. atat 692;
692; see
see also
also Jury
Jury Trial,
Trial,

4/11/2024,
4/11/2024, Commonwealth’s
Commonwealth's Ex.
Ex. 38
38 and
and 39.
39.

17
17
VI.
VI. Evidence Submitted Crime
Crime Laboratory

Detective Gluth testified that
that he
he signed out
out the evidence
evidence from
from the March 27,
27, 2019,
2019, June
June

13,
13, 2019 and July 17,
17, 2019 controlled buys
buys and transported
transported the items
items to the Greensburg Regional
Regional

Laboratory (also known
known as
as the Pennsylvania State
State Police
Police Crime
Crime Laboratory)
Laboratory) on February
February 17,
17,

2021.
2021. Id.
Id. at
at 698;
698; see
see also
also Jury
Jury Trial,
Trial, 4/1 1/2024, Commonwealth’s
4/11/2024, Commonwealth's Ex.
Ex. 40.
40.

VII.
VII. Evidence
Evidence Tested at
at Crime
Crime Laboratory
Laboratory

Sara
Sara Lundolh
Lundolh testified
testified at
at trial.
trial. TT,
TT, vol.
vol. II,
II, 556,
556, 4/10/2024.
4/10/2024. She
She isis aa forensic
forensic scientist
scientist

who
who specializes
specializes in
in drug
drug identification.
identification. Id.
Id. Lundolh
Lundolh was
was employed
employed by
by the
the Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania State
State

Police
Police in
in 2021.
2021. Id.
Id. Lundolh
Lundolh testified,
testified, while
while working
working at
at the
the Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania State
State Police
Police Crime
Crime

Laboratory,
Laboratory, that
that she
she received
received evidence
evidence envelopes
envelopes relating
relating to
to the
the March
March 27,
27, 2019,
2019, June
June 13,
13, 2019
2019

and
and July
July 17,
17, 2019
2019 controlled
controlled buys.
buys. Id.
Id. at
at 559-560.
559-560. Lundolh
Lundolh performed
performed testing
testing on
on each
each item
item of
of

evidence.
evidence. Id.
Id. Each
Each of
ofthe
the three
three items
items tested
tested was
was identified
identified as
as cocaine.
cocaine. Id.
Id. atat 562,
562, 565,
565, 567.
567.

Lundolh
Lundolh testified
testified that
that when
when she
she concluded
concludedher
hertesting
testing on
on all
all three
three items
items of
ofevidence,
evidence, she
she sealed
sealed

the
the envelopes
envelopes at
at the
the bottom,
bottom, using
using blue
blue tape.
tape. Id.
Id. atat 567-568.
567-568. Lundol,
Lundol, who
who inspected
inspectedthe
the

envelopes
envelopes atat trial,
trial, testified
testifiedthat
that envelopes
envelopes remained
remained in
inthe
the same
same sealed
sealed condition
condition atattrial
trial as
as when
when

they
theywere
were sent
sentback
backto
to the
theWashington
WashingtonCounty
CountyDrug
DrugTask
TaskForce.
Force. Id.
Id.

VIII.
VIII. Evidence
Evidence Returned
ReturnedtotoWashington
WashingtonCounty
CountyDrug
DrugTask
TaskForce
Force

On
OnApril
April 13,
13, 2021,
2021, Detective
DetectiveGluth
Gluthobtained
obtainedthe
theevidence
evidencefrom
fromthe
thelaboratory,
laboratory,

transported
transportedititback
backtotothe
theWashington
WashingtonCounty
CountyDrug
DrugTask
TaskForce
Forceoffice
officeand
andsigned
signedititback
backinto
into

evidence.
evidence.Id.
Id. atat699.
699.

IX.
IX. Evidence
EvidencePresented
PresentedatatTrial
Trial

18
18
Detective Gluth testified
testified that
that on April
April 9,
9, 2024,
2024, he signed out
out the evidence and transported

the items
items to the courtroom
courtroom for the jury trial.
trial. Id.
Id. at
at 699,
699, 717,
717, 727;
727; see also Jury Trial,
Trial, 4/1 1/2024,
4/11/2024,

Commonwealth’s
Commonwealth's Ex.
Ex. 40.
40.

X.
X. August
August 31,
31, 2019 Controlled
Controlled Buy
Buy

On
On August
August 31,
31, 2019,
2019, the
the C.I.
C.I. was
was searched
searched by
by Detective
Detective Fichter.
Fichter. TT,
TT, vol.
vol. II,
II, 412,
412,

4/10/2024.
4/10/2024. The
The C.I.
C.I. stayed
stayed within
within view
view of
ofthe
the detectives
detectives at
at all
all times.
times. Id.
Id. Defendant
Defendant showed
showed up
up

to
to the
the residence
residence and
and the
the C.I.
C.I. got
got into
into Defendant’s
Defendant's vehicle.
vehicle. Id.
Id. at
at 414.
414. The
The detectives
detectives observed
observed aa

hand-to-hand
hand-to-hand exchange.
exchange. Id.
Id. at
at 416.
416. The
The C.I.
C.I. then
then exited
exited the
the vehicle
vehicle and
and Defendant
Defendant left.
left. Id.
Id.

Detective
Detective Fichter
Fichter testified
testified that
thatthe
the narcotics
narcotics were
were secured
secured from
from the
the C.I.
C.I. Id.
Id. The
The controlled
controlled

substances
substances were
were returned
returned to
to the
the District
District Attorney’s
Attorney's Drug
Drug Task
Task Force
Force Office
Office to
to process
process the
the

evidence.
evidence. Id.
Id. at
at 417.
417. The
The evidence
evidence was
was put
put in
in aa plastic
plastic bag
bag and
and sealed
sealed with
with evidence
evidence tape
tape and
and

secured
secured into
into aa temporary
temporary evidence
evidence locker.
locker. Id.
Id. at
at 418.
418. Detective
Detective Fichter
Fichter testified
testified that
that the
the

temporary
temporary locker
locker isis aa locker
locker with
with aapadlock
padlockthat
that only
only the
the supervisor,
supervisor, Chief
ChiefGluth,
Gluth, has
has access
access to.
to.

Id.
Id. Chief
ChiefGluth
Gluth isis responsible
responsible for
forplacing
placing evidence
evidence into
into the
themain
main evidence
evidence room.
room. Id.
Id. atat418-419;
418-419;

see
see also
also Jury
Jury Trial,
Trial, 4/10/2024,
4/10/2024, Commonwealth’s
Commonwealth'sEx.
Ex. 16
16 and
and 18.
18. Detective
Detective Fichter
Fichter explained
explainedthat
that

there
there isis aa log
logthat
thathas
has to
tobeen
beencompleted
completedwhen
when evidence
evidence isisplaced
placedin
inthe
thetemporary
temporaryholding
holding

locker.
locker. TT,
TT, vol.
vol. II,
II, 460,
460, 4/10/2024.
4/10/2024. He
Heexplained
explainedthat
thataavery
veryrudimentary
rudimentarylog
logisisutilized
utilizedwhich
which

includes
includesthe
the incident
incidentnumber,
number,the
theofficer
officername,
name, and
andaashort
shortdescription
descriptionof
ofthe
theevidence
evidencethat
thatisis

being
beingplaced
placedininthe
thetemporary
temporarylocker.
locker. Id:,
Id.;see
seealso
alsoJury
JuryTrial,
Trial,4/10/2024,
4/10/2024, Commonwealth’s
Commonwealth'sEx.
Ex.

25.
25.

On
OnSeptember
September3,3,2019,
2019,Detective
DetectiveGluth
Gluthentered
enteredthe
thecocaine
cocaineinto
intoevidence.
evidence.TT,
TT,vol.
vol.Ill,
III,

712,
712,4/1 1/2024; see
4/11/2024; seealso
alsoJury
JuryTrial,
Trial,4/1 1/2024, Commonwealth’s
4/11/2024, Commonwealth'sEx.
Ex.45.
45. The
Theevidence
evidencewas
was

signed
signedout
outby
byGluth
Gluthand
andtransported
transportedtotothe
thecrime
crimelaboratory
laboratoryon
onSeptember
September24,
24,2019.
2019. Id.
Id.atat714.
714.

19
19
On January
January 29,
29, 2020,
2020, Gluth retrieved
retrieved the evidence from
from the crime laboratory after it was
was tested
tested

and signed
signed it back into evidence at
at the Washington County Drug Task Force office.
office. Id.
Id. at
at 717;
717;

see also Jury
Jury Trial,
Trial, 4/11/2024,
1/2024, Commonwealth’s
Commonwealth's Ex.
Ex. 48.
48. On
On April
April 9,
9, 2024,
2024, Detective Gluth

signed
signed the evidence and transported it to the courthouse for the jury trial.
trial. Id.
Id.

XL
XI. September
September 18,
18, 2019 Controlled Buy
Buy

On
On September
September 18,
18, 2019,
2019, Detective Fichter
Fichter testified that
that the C.I.’s
C.I.'s person and vehicle was
was

searched.
searched. TT,
TT, vol.
vol. II,
II, 432,
432, 4/10/2024.
4/10/2024. The
The team
team set
set up surveillance
surveillance of the location of the buy.
buy.

Id.
Id. at
at 433.
433. The
The C.I.
C.I. stepped
stepped out
out of
of his
his vehicle when
when Defendant
Defendant arrived.
arrived. Id.
Id. at
at 434.
434. Defendant
Defendant

opened
opened the
the C.I.’s
C.1.'s passenger
passenger door,
door, placed something
something in
in the
the vehicle
vehicle and
and then
then aa hand-to-hand
hand-to-hand

interaction
interaction was
was observed
observed between the
the C.I.
C.I. and
and Defendant.
Defendant. Id.
Id. At
At no
no point
point did
did the
the C.I.
C.I. leave
leave

Detective
Detective Fichter’s
Fichter's sight.
sight. Id.
Id. at
at 434-435.
434-435. Detective
Detective Fichter
Fichter was
was able
able to
to positively
positively identify
identify

Defendant.
Defendant. Id.
Id. at
at 437.
437. After
After Defendant
Defendant left
left the
the area,
area, Detective
Detective Fichter
Fichter search
search the
the C.I.’s
C.I.'s vehicle
vehicle

and
and recovered
recovered cocaine
cocaine that
that was
was placed
placed in
in the
the center
center console
console by
by Defendant.
Defendant. Id.
Id. at
at 440.
440. The
The

cocaine
cocaine was
was brought
brought back
back to
to the
the Washington
Washington County
County Drug
Drug Task
Task Force
Force Office,
Office, packaged
packaged in
in an
an

evidence
evidence envelope
envelope and
and placed
placed in
in the
the temporary
temporary locker.
locker. Id.
Id. at
at 440-441;
440-441; see
see also
also Jury
Jury Trial,
Trial,

4/10/2024,
4/10/2024, Commonwealth’s
Commonwealth's Ex.
Ex. 19,
19, 20,
20, and
and 25.
25.

On
On September
September 22,
22, 2019,
2019, Detective
Detective Gluth
Gluth entered
entered the
the cocaine
cocaine into
into evidence.
evidence. TT,
TT, vol.
vol. Ill,
III,

720,
720, 4/1 1/2024; see
4/11/2024; see also
also Jury
Jury Trial,
Trial, 4/1 1/2024, Commonwealth’s
4/11/2024, Commonwealth's Ex.
Ex. 49.
49. The
The evidence
evidence was
was

signed
signed out
out by
by Gluth
Gluth and
and transported
transported to
to the
the crime
crime laboratory
laboratory for
for testing
testing on
on September
September 24,
24, 2019.
2019.

Id.
Id. at
at 721-722;
721-722; see
see also
also Jury
Jury Trial,
Trial, 4/1 1/2024, Commonwealth’s
4/11/2024, Commonwealth's Ex.
Ex. 51.
51. On
On January
January 29,
29, 2020,
2020,

Gluth
Gluth retrieved
retrieved the
the evidence
evidence from
from the
the crime
crime laboratory
laboratory after
after itit was
was tested
tested and
and signed
signed itit back
back into
into

evidence
evidence atat the
the Washington
Washington County
County Drug
Drug Task
Task Force
Force Office.
Office. Id.
Id. atat 722;
722; see
see also
also Jury
Jury Trial,
Trial,

4/1 1/2024, Commonwealth’s
4/11/2024, Commonwealth's Ex.
Ex. 49.
49. On
On April
April 9,9, 2024,
2024, Detective
Detective Gluth
Gluth signed
signed the
the evidence
evidence and
and

20
20
transported it to the courthouse for the jury trial.
trial. Id.;
Id.; see
see also
also Jury Trial, 1/2024,
Trial, 4/11/2024,

Commonwealth’s
Commonwealth's Ex.
Ex. 52.
52.

XII.
XII. September
September 23,
23, 2019 Controlled Buy
Buy

On
On September
September 23,
23, 2019,
2019, law
law enforcement
enforcement searched
searched the
the C.I.
C.I. TT,
TT, vol.
vol. II,
II, 449,
449, 4/10/2024.
4/10/2024.

Surveillance
Surveillance was
was set
set up
up of
of the
the GetGo
GetGo in
in Washington
Washington County.
County. Id.
Id. at
at 451.
451. The
The C.I.
C.I. was
was followed
followed

by
by law
law enforcement
enforcement to
to the
the location.
location. Id.
Id. Once
Once Defendant
Defendant arrived,
arrived, the
the C.I.
C.I. got
got into
into Defendant’s
Defendant's

vehicle.
vehicle. Id.
Id. There
There was
was an
an exchange
exchange then
then both
both individuals
individuals got
got out
out of
ofDefendant’s
Defendant's vehicle.
vehicle. Id.
Id. at
at

452.
452. The
The C.I.
C.I. was
was followed
followed by
by law
law enforcement
enforcement to
to aa predetermined
predetermined location
location where
where Detective
Detective

Fichter
Fichter obtained
obtained cocaine
cocaine which
which the
the C.I.
C.I. had
had purchased
purchased from
from Defendant.
Defendant. Id.
Id. at
at 454.
454. The
The

evidence
evidence was
was then
then packaged
packaged and
and placed
placed into
into the
the lockers
lockers that
that could
couldnot
not be
be re-accessed.
re-accessed. Id.
Id. atat

459-460;
459-460; see
see also
also Jury
Jury Trial,
Trial, 4/10/2024,
4/10/2024, Commonwealth’s
Commonwealth's Ex.
Ex. 22,
22, 23,
23, 24,
24, and
and45.
45.

On
On September
September26,
26, 2019,
2019, Detective
Detective Gluth
Gluthremoved
removedthe
the cocaine
cocaine from
fromthe
thetemporary
temporary

evidence
evidence locker
locker and
andentered
enteredthe
theitem
iteminto
into evidence.
evidence. TT,
TT, vol.
vol. Ill,
III, 724,
724, 4/1 1/2024; see
4/11/2024; see also
also Jury
Jury

Trial,
Trial,4/1 1/2024, Commonwealth’s
4/11/2024, Commonwealth'sEx.
Ex. 53.
53. The
The evidence
evidencewas
was signed
signedout
outby
byGluth
Gluthand
and

transported
transportedtotothe
thecrime
crimelaboratory
laboratoryfor
fortesting
testingon
onOctober
October28,
28,2019.
2019. Id.
Id. atat726;
726;see
seealso
alsoJury
Jury

Trial,
Trial,4/1 1/2024, Commonwealth’s
4/11/2024, Commonwealth'sEx.
Ex. 55.
55. On
OnJanuary
January29,
29,2020,
2020,Gluth
Gluthretrieved
retrievedthe
theevidence
evidence

from
fromthe
thecrime
crimelaboratory
laboratoryafter
afterititwas
wastested
testedand
andsigned
signedititback
backinto
intoevidence
evidenceatatthe
theWashington
Washington

County
CountyDrug
DrugTask
TaskForce
ForceOffice.
Office.Id.
Id.atat727;
727;see
seealso
alsoJury
JuryTrial,
Trial,4/1 1/2024, Commonwealth’s
4/11/2024, Commonwealth'sEx.
Ex.

56.
56. On
OnApril
April9,9,2024,
2024,Detective
DetectiveGluth
Gluthsigned
signedthe
theevidence
evidenceand
andtransported
transporteditittotothe
thecourthouse
courthouse

for
forthe
thejury
jurytrial.
trial.Id.
Id.atat727;
727;see
seealso
alsoJury
JuryTrial,
Trial,4/1 1/2024, Commonwealth’s
4/11/2024, Commonwealth's56.
56.

Evidence
EvidenceReceived
Receivedby
byCrime
CrimeLaboratory
Laboratory

Casey
CaseyCastle,
Castle,aalab
labtechnician
technicianfor
forthe
thePennsylvania
PennsylvaniaState
StatePolice
PoliceCrime
CrimeLab,
Lab,received
receivedand
and

tested
testedthe
theevidence
evidencerelating
relatingtotothe
theAugust
August31,
31,2019,
2019,September
September18,
18,2019
2019and
andSeptember
September23,
23,2019
2019

2121
controlled
controlled buys.
buys. TT,
TT, vol.
vol. Ill,
III, 540-541,
540-541, 4/1 1/2024; see
4/11/2024; see also
also Jury
Jury Trial,
Trial, 4/1 1/2024,
4/11/2024,

Commonwealth’s
Commonwealth's Exhibit
Exhibit 18,
18, 20,
20, 24.
24. Castle
Castle testified
testified that
that the
the evidence
evidence received
received by
by the
the crime
crime

laboratory
laboratory which
which she
she tested
tested was
was submitted
submitted by
by Detective
Detective Gluth.
Gluth. Id.
Id. at
at 541.
541. Castle
Castle explained
explained that
that

one
one of
of the
the first
first things
things she
she does
does when
when she
she receives
receives evidence
evidence is
is to
to look
look to
to make
make sure
sure that
that there
there is
is aa

seal
seal with
with the
the proper
proper signature.
signature. Id.
Id. Typically,
Typically, the
the laboratory
laboratory technicians
technicians check
check the
the case
case

information
information to
to make
make sure
sure that
that itit isis consistent
consistent with
with the
the request
request form
form that
that they
they received.
received. Id.
Id. In
In this
this

case,
case, all
all three
three exhibits
exhibits that
that she
she tested
tested were
were sealed
sealed with
with the
the red
red tamperproof
tamperprooftape.
tape. Id.
Id. Castle
Castle

testified
testified that
that she
she would
would have
have noted
noted if there was
ifthere was any
any improper
improper seal
seal or
or problems
problems with
with packaging.
packaging.

Id.
Id. at
at 542.
542. Castle
Castle further
further testified
testified that
that the
the evidence
evidence envelopes
envelopes showed
showed no
no signed
signed that
that they
they had
had

been
been tempered
tempered with.
with. Id.
Id.

Castle
Castle explained
explainedthat
thatwhen
when evidence
evidence isis received
receivedby
by the
the Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania State
State Police
Police Crime
Crime

Laboratory,
Laboratory, itit isis assigned
assigned aa lab
lab number
number set
set forth
forthon
on aayellow
yellow label
label and
andhas
has Bureau
Bureau of
ofForensic
Forensic

Service
Servicetape
tapeused
usedto
to seal
sealthe
thebottom
bottomof
ofthe
the envelope
envelopewhich
whichbears
bears Castle’s
Castle's signature^
signature, along
alongwith
with

the
thedate
dateand
andtime.
time. Id.
Id. atat543-544.
543-544.

Castle
Castleopened
openedthe
thesealed
sealedevidence
evidenceenvelopes
envelopeswhile
whileon
onthe
thewitness
witnessstand
standrelating
relatingtotothe
the

August
August31,
31,2019,
2019, September
September18,
18,2019
2019and
andSeptember
September23,
23,2019
2019controlled
controlledbuys.
buys. Id.
Id. atat544, 551,
544,551,

553;
553;see
seealso
alsoJury
JuryTrial,
Trial,4/1 1/2024, Commonwealth’s
4/11/2024, Commonwealth'sExhibit
Exhibit 18,
18,20,
20,and
and24.
24. She
Shetestified
testifiedthat
that

she
sheconducted
conductedtesting
testingon
onthe
theitems
itemsinside
insidethe
theenvelopes.
envelopes. Id.
Id. The
Theitems
itemsininthe
thethree
threeevidence
evidence

envelopes
envelopeswere
wereall
allfound
foundtotobe
becocaine.
cocaine. Id.
Id.atat545,
545,552,
552,554;
554; see
seealso
alsoJury
JuryTrial,
Trial,4/1 1/2024,
4/11/2024,

Commonwealth’s
Commonwealth'sEx.
Ex.27,
27,28,
28,and
and29.
29. Ms.
Ms.Castle
Castlepersonally
personallyre-seals
re-sealsthe
theenvelopes
envelopesafter
aftertesting.
testing.

Id.
Id.atat555.
555.Afterwards,
Afterwards,the
theenvelope
envelopegoes
goesback
backtotothe
theevidence
evidencetechnician
technicianwho
whoplaces
placesititininaa

secure
securevault
vaultwhere
whereititawaits
awaitspick
pickup
upfrom
fromthe
thesubmitting
submittingagency.
agency. Id.
Id. The
Theenvelopes
envelopeswere
wereininthe
the

22
22
same
same condition as when Castle sent
sent them
them back to the Washington County Drug Task Force.
Force. Id.
Id.

at
at 551, 553, 561.
551,553,561.

The
The Commonwealth's
Commonwealth's extensive evidence presented
presented at
at trial,
trial, as
as set
set forth in detail
detail above,
above,

establishes a reasonable inference that
that the
the identity
identity and
and condition
condition of
of the
the cocaine
cocaine remained
remained the
the

same
same from
from the
the time
time itit was
was first
first received
received until
until the
the time
time of
of trial.
trial.

Defendant
Defendant argues
argues that
that the
the Commonwealth's
Commonwealth's witnesses,
witnesses, specifically
specifically law
law enforcement
enforcement

officers
officers involved
involved in
in the
the investigation,
investigation, are
are not
not credible
credible witnesses
witnesses and
and evidence,
evidence, such
such as
as the
the control
control

logs,
logs, are
are not authentic. ItIt isis well
not authentic. well established
established under
under Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania law
law that
that "[t]he
"[t]he weight
weight of
ofthe
the

evidence
evidence isis exclusively
exclusively for
for the
the finder
finder of
offact,
fact, who
who isis free
free to
to believe
believe all,
all, none
none or
or some
some of
ofthe
the

evidence
evidence and
and to
to determine
detennine the
the credibility
credibility of
ofwitnesses."
witnesses." Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.v. Fuentes,
Fuentes, 2022
2022 PA
PA

Super
Super 43,
43, 272
272 A.3d
A.3d 51 1, 516
511, 516 (Pa.
(Pa. Super.
Super. Ct.
Ct. 2022);
2022); see
see also
also Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.v. Ghrist,
Ghrist, 873
873 WDA
WDA

2015,
2015, 2016
2016 WL
WL 5173526,
5173526, at
at 66 (Pa.
(Pa. Super.
Super. Ct.
Ct. July
July 13,
13, 2016).
2016).

Defendant
Defendant sets
sets forth
forth in
in his
his Concise
Concise Statement
Statement aa broad
broad assertion
assertion that
that documents
documents presented
presented

by
by the
the Commonwealth
Commonwealth atat trial
trial relating
relatingto
to chain
chainof
ofcustody
custody were
were fabricated
fabricated and
and fraudulent.
fraudulent. This
This

Court
Court finds
finds the
the statement
statementwholly
wholly inadequate
inadequate to
to state
state aa challenge
challengeto
to the
the evidence
evidencepresented
presented atat

trial.
trial. Defendant
Defendanthas
has failed
failedto
to develop
developmeaningful
meaningful argument
argumentwith
with specific
specificreference
referencetoto the
therecord
record

to
to support
supporthis
his claim
claimon
onappeal
appealthat
thatthe
theevidence
evidencepresented
presentedatattrial
trialregarding
regardingevidence
evidence control
controllogs
logs

were
were fabricated
fabricated or fraudulent. ItItisis suggested
orfraudulent. suggestedthat
thatDefendant
Defendanttherefore
thereforehas
haswaived
waivedreview
reviewof
ofthe
the

claims.
claims.

23
23
H.
H. Rule
Rule 600,
600, 180 Days
Days of Pretrial
Pretrial Confinement
Confinement

1.
1. Standard of Review
Review

"In evaluating Rule
“In Rule [600]
[600] issues,
issues, our
our standard of review
review of a trial
trial court's
court's decision is
is

whether
whether the
the trial
trial court
court abused its
its discretion.”
discretion." Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.v. Hunt,
Hunt, 858
858 A.2d
A.2d 1234,
1234, 1238 (Pa.
(Pa.

Super.
Super. 2004)
2004) (internal
(internal citations
citations omitted).
omitted).

2.
2. Court’s
Court's Analysis
Analysis

Defendant
Defendant argues
argues that
that he
he was
was “deprived
"deprived of
of Rule
Rule 600(B),
600(B), (D)(2)
(D)(2) &
& (E)
(E) after
after 180
180 days
days of
of

pretrial
pretrial confinement.”
confinement." See
See Defendant’s
Defendant's Concise
Concise Statement,
Statement, 7/22/2024.
7/22/2024.

Defendant
Defendant filed
filed aa pro se “Motion
prose "Motion Pursuant
Pursuant to
to Rule
Rule 600(B),
600(B), (D)(2)
(D)(2) and
and (E)”
(E)" on
on February
February

23,
23, 2024
2024 and
and presented
presented the
the Motion
Motion to
to this
this Court
Court on
on March
March 5,
5, 2024.
2024. This
This Court
Court held
held an
an

evidentiary
evidentiary hearing
hearing on
on March
March 12,
12, 2024
2024 for
for the
the limited
limited purpose
purpose of
ofdetermining
determining whether
whether

Defendant
Defendant isis entitled
entitled to
to immediate
immediate release
release on
on nominal
nominal bail
bailpursuant
pursuant to
to Rule
Rule 600(B),
600(B), (D)(2)
(D)(2) and
and

(E).
(E). See
See Rule
Rule 600
600 Nominal
Nominal Bail
Bail Hr’g
Hr'g Tr.,
Tr., 3/12/2024.
3/12/2024. Defendant’s
Defendant's motion
motion was
was denied
deniedby
by way
way of
of

Opinion
Opinion and
and Order
Order dated
datedMarch
March 14,
14, 2024.
2024.

The
The reasons
reasons for
forthe
the Court’s
Court's March
March 14,
14, 2024
2024 Order
Orderalready
already appear
appearof
ofrecord
record in
in said
said

Opinion
Opinion and
andOrder.
Order. Therefore,
Therefore, this
this Court
Courthereby
hereby incorporates
incorporatesthe
the same
same as
as its
itsPa.R.A.P.
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)
1925(a)

Opinion
Opinionand
and attaches
attaches itithereto.
hereto. For
Forthe
thereasons
reasonsset
setforth
forthininthe
theMarch
March 14,
14,2024
2024 Opinion
Opinionand
and

Order,
Order, this
this Court
Courtrespectfully
respectfullysubmits
submitsthat
thatits
itsorder
orderbe
beaffirmed
affirmedon
onthe
themerits
meritsand
andDefendant’s
Defendant's

appeal
appealbe
bedismissed.
dismissed.

I.I. Unconstitutionally
UnconstitutionallyDenied
DeniedBail
Bail

Defendant
Defendantargues
arguesthat
thathe
hewas
wasillegally
illegallydeprived
deprivedan
anopportunity
opportunitytotopost
postbail
bailand
andJudge
Judge

Valerie
ValerieCostanzo
Costanzoblatantly
blatantlyfailed
failedtotostate
stateon
onthe
therecord
recordwhy
whyshe
shedenied
deniedDefendant
Defendantan
anopportunity
opportunity

atatbail
bailpursuant
pursuanttotoPa.
Pa.R.
R.Crim.
Crim.P.P.521(c).
521(c).

24
24
The was initially
bail was
Defendant's bail
that Defendant’s
demonstrates that
record demonstrates
The record by Magisterial
denied by
initially denied District
Magisterial District

Judge 2023. The
14, 2023.
April 14,
on April
Kanalis on
Joshua Kanalis
Judge Joshua district judge
magisterial district
The magisterial did not
judge did set bail
not set on the
bail on the

basis made ten
had made
detectives had
(2) detectives
two (2)
that two
basis that attempts to
(10) attempts
ten (10) arrest Defendant
to arrest at his
Defendant at residence and
his residence and

present. See
never present.
was never
Defendant was
Defendant Woodall, MJ-27
Commonwealth v Woodall,
See Commonwealth » 01 -CR-00001 14-2021,
MJ-27101-CR-0000114-2021,

an evidentiary
and an
2023 and
16, 2023
May 16,
on May
Bail on
Set Bail
to Set
Motion to
filed aa Motion
Defendant filed
Docket. Defendant
Criminal Docket.
Criminal evidentiary

Barna, and
Agent Barna,
Defendant, Agent
Costanzo. Defendant,
Valarie Costanzo.
Judge Valarie
before Judge
2023 before
20, 2023
June 20,
on June
held on
was held
hearing was
hearing and

Hr'g Tr.,
Bail Hr’g
Set Bail
to Set
Motion to
Defendant's Motion
See Defendant’s
hearing. See
the hearing.
at the
testified at
Fichter testified
Detective Fichter
Detective Tr.,

forth aa
set forth
hearing, set
the hearing,
presented atat the
evidence presented
the evidence
on the
based on
Commonwealth, based
The Commonwealth,
6/20/2023. The
6/20/2023.

agreedwith
Costanzo agreed
Judge Costanzo
risk. Judge
flightrisk.
be aaflight
maybe
Defendantmay
whyDefendant
Courtwhy
the Court
to the
argumentto
detailed argument
detailed with

theevidentiary
afterthe
Bail, after
SetBail,
Motiontoto Set
Defendant'sMotion
denyingDefendant’s
bydenying
argumentby
Commonwealth's argument
the Commonwealth’s
the evidentiary

22, 2023.
June22,
onJune
enteredon
orderentered
byorder
hearing,by
hearing, 2023.

Defendant onJuly
Motionon
PretrialMotion
OmnibusPretrial
anOmnibus
filedan
Defendantfiled 2023,which
27,2023,
July27, includedaaMotion
whichincluded Motion

deniedDefendant’s
hearing,denied
2023hearing,
13,2023
October13,
theOctober
followingthe
Costanzo,following
JudgeCostanzo,
Bail. Judge
SetBail.
totoSet Defendant's

devoidof
entirelydevoid
recordisisentirely
"therecord
stating,“the
Opinion,stating,
2024Opinion,
26,2024
January26,
herJanuary
Bailininher
SetBail
ToSet
MotionTo
Motion of

Motionthat
PretrialMotion
OmnibusPretrial
hisOmnibus
onhis
hearingon
thehearing
Defendantatatthe
byDefendant
presentedby
waspresented
thatwas
evidencethat
anyevidence
any that

indicatesany
indicates circumstancesfollowing
changeinincircumstances
anychange denialof
thedenial
followingthe Defendant'sinitial
ofDefendant’s motiontotoset
initialmotion set

amount."See
bailamount.”
Defendanttotoaabail
entitleDefendant
nowentitle
wouldnow
thatwould
bailthat
bail SeeOpinion andOrder,
Opinionand 16,1/26/2024.
Order,16, 1/26/2024.

Defendant,ininsupport
Defendant, hisargument,
ofhis
supportof Pa.R.Crim.P.521(c),
citestotoPa.R.Crim.P.
argument,cites whichrelates
52l(c),which bail
relatestotobail

forththat
settingforth
authoritysetting
legalauthority
anylegal
citetotoany
notcite
doesnot
Defendantdoes
guilt.Defendant
findingofofguilt.
aftera afinding
after that

herJune
Costanzo,ininher
JudgeCostanzo,
thatJudge
determinedthat
overturnedififititisisdetermined
shouldbebeoverturned
convictionshould
Defendant'sconviction
Defendant’s June

fordenying
reasonsfor
thereasons
specifythe
adequatelyspecify
notadequately
didnot
Order,did
2023Order,
22,2023
22, Defendant's“Direct
bail. Defendant’s
denying.bail. "Direct

overturnthe
argumentotooverturn
hisargument
supporthis
notsupport
doesnot
thatdoes
caselawthat
irrelevantcaselaw
citestotoirrelevant
briefcites
Appeal"brief
Appeal the

thiscase.
convictionininthis
conviction case.

2525
The Pennsylvania
The Pennsylvania Supreme has clearly
Court has
Supreme Court that even
stated that
clearly stated if bail
even if was improperly
bail was set
improperly set

no prophylactic
is no
there is
trial, there
to trial,
prior to
prior rule that
prophylactic rule new trial
that aa new is required.
trial is See Commonwealth
required. See Commonwealth vv

537 (1981).
Pa. 537
494 Pa.
Floyd, 494
Floyd, (1981).

The Order already
2024 Order
26, 2024
January 26,
Court's January
the Court’s
for the
reasons for
The reasons already appear in said
ofrecord in
appear of said

Opinion Court hereby
this Court
Therefore, this
Order. Therefore,
and Order.
Opinion and hereby incorporates same as
the same
incorporates the as part its Pa.R.A.P.
ofits
part of Pa.R.A.P.

1925(a) Opinion.
1925(a) the reasons
For the
Opinion. For set forth
reasons set above, this
forth above, Court submits
this Court that Defendant’s
submits that claim
Defendant's claim

be dismissed.
should be
should dismissed.

J.J. Defendant precluded
Defendant from entering
precluded from evidence for
entering evidence trialpurposes
fortrial to show
purposes to show
motive targetDefendant
suggestively target
motive of law enforcement wanting to suggestively
of law enforcement wanting to Defendant

1.1. Standardof
Standard ofReview
Review

“In theadmissibility
onthe
rulingon
court's ruling
trial court's
reviewingaatrial
"Inreviewing evidence, [the]
ofevidence,
admissibilityof of
standardof
[the] standard

review Commonwealthv.v.Thompson,
deference. Commonwealth
ofdeference.
oneof
reviewisisone PASuper
2014PA
Thompson,2014 106A.3d
273, 106
Super273, 742(Pa.
A.3d742 (Pa.

Super. theadmissibility
concerningthe
Questionsconcerning
2014). Questions
Ct.2014).
Super. Ct. evidenceare
ofevidence
admissibilityof within“the
arewithin sound
"thesound

discretion andits
court,and
trialcourt,
thetrial
ofthe
discretionof willnot
discretionwill
itsdiscretion bereversed
notbe absentaaclear
reversedabsent abuseof
clearabuse of

discretion."Id.
discretion.” Id.

2.2. Court'sAnalysis
Court’s Analysis

Defendant objection,
Commonwealth'sobjection,
theCommonwealth's
sustainingthe
erredininsustaining
Courterred
theCourt
arguesthe
nextargues
Defendantnext

motiveofoflaw
showedmotive
arguesshowed
Defendantargues
thatDefendant
evidencethat
offeringevidence
fromoffering
himfrom
precludinghim
therebyprecluding
thereby law

targetDefendant.
suggestivelytarget
wantingtotosuggestively
enforcementwanting
enforcement Defendant.

Defendant soughta apretrial
Defendantsought pretrialruling Commonwealth'sobjections
regardingCommonwealth’s
rulingregarding relatingtoto
objectionsrelating

several trial.See
presentatatrial.
wantedtotopresent
Defendantwanted
thatDefendant
documenthat
severaldocument ConferenceHr’g
PretrialConference
SeePretrial 22,
Tr.,22,
Hr'gTr.,

In.In.13-21; 33,In.In.11-18,
13-21;33, 4/8/2024. Defendant
11-18,4/8/2024. setforth
Defendantset thatheheintended
forththat establishatatrial
intendedtotoestablish trialthat
that

law retaliation.
formofofretaliation.
donesosoasasa aform
haddone
case,had
instantcase,
theinstant
chargesininthe
thecharges
filingthe
enforcement,ininfiling
lawenforcement,

Defendantexplained
Defendant couldestablish
thathehecould
explainedthat retaliationthrough
establishretaliation severaldocuments
throughseveral whichhehe
documentswhich

2626
wanted
wanted to
to present
present at
at trial
trial and
and have
have admitted
admitted into
into evidence.
evidence. Id.
Id. at
at 17.
17. Defendant
Defendant asserted
asserted that
that the
the

exhibits
exhibits he
he sought
sought to
to use
use at
at trial
trial were
were self-authenticating
self-authenticating documents.
documents. Defendant
Defendant further
further stated
stated

that
that he
he did
did not
not intend
intend on
on calling
calling any
any witnesses
witnesses to
to testify
testify at
at trial
trial to
to authenticate
authenticate the
the documents
documents or
or

further
further develop
develop his
his claim
claim regarding retaliation.
retaliation. Id.
Id. at
at 21.
21.

The
The Commonwealth
Commonwealth did
did not
not stipulate
stipulate to
to the
the issue
issue of
of authentication.
authentication. “Unless
"Unless stipulated,
stipulated, to
to

satisfy
satisfy the
the requirement
requirement of
of authenticating
authenticating or
or identifying
identifying an
an item
item of
of evidence,
evidence, the
the proponent
proponent must
must

produce
produce evidence
evidence sufficient
sufficient to
to support
support aa finding
finding that
that the
the item
item isis what
what the
the proponent
proponent claims
claims itit is.”
is."

Pa.R.E.
Pa.R.E. 901.
901.

The
The Court,
Court, in
in an
an attempt
attempt to
to fully
fully develop
develop the
the record,
record, reviewed
reviewed each
each exhibit
exhibit in
in detail
detail with
with

the
the parties
parties and
and ruled
ruled on
on objections
objections made
made by
by the
the Commonwealth.
Commonwealth. Id.
Id. atat 25
25 -54.
-54.

Defendant
Defendant sought
sought to
to use
use atat trial
trial aa copy
copy of
ofaa document
documenttitled
titled Initial
Initial Complaint.
Complaint. Defendant
Defendant

explained
explainedthat
thatthe
the document
document isis aa copy
copy of
ofaa civil
civil complaint
complaintdated
dated September
September 13,
13, 2018
2018 which
whichhe
he

filed
filedagainst
againstMonroeville
MonroevillePolice
Police Officer
OfficerLouis
Louis Curio
Curio and
andPennsylvania
Pennsylvania Office
Officeof
ofAttorney
Attorney

General
GeneralAgent
AgentKuneo.
Kuneo. Id.
Id. atat25;
25;see
seealso
alsoDefendant’s
Defendant's Omnibus
Omnibus Pretrial
PretrialMotion
MotionBriefing,
Briefing,

3/7/2024,
3/7/2024,Exhibit
ExhibitI.I. Defendant
Defendantacknowledged
acknowledgedthat
thatOfficer
OfficerCurio
Curio and
andAgent
AgentKuneo
Kuneowere
werenot
not

directly
directlyrelated
relatedtotothe
thepresent
presentcase.
case. Id.
Id. atat20,
20,In.
In. 11-14.
11-14. The
TheCommonwealth
Commonwealthobjected
objectedtotothe
the

document
documentbeing
beingpresented
presentedatattrial
trialand
andargued
arguedthe
thedocument
documentwas
wasirrelevant
irrelevantsince
sinceititdid
didnot
notrelate
relate

totothe
thepresent
presentcase
caseand
andthe
theofficers
officersreferenced
referencedininthe
thecivil
civilcomplaint
complaintwere
werenot
nottestifying
testifyingatattrial.
trial.

The
TheCommonwealth
Commonwealthfurther
furtherargued
arguedthat
thatthe
thedocument
documentwould
wouldbe
beconfusing
confusingtotothe
thejury.
jury. Id.
Id.atat26.
26.

The
TheCourt
Courtsustained
sustainedthe
theCommonwealth’s
Commonwealth'sobjection,
objection,ruling
rulingthat
thatthe
theexhibit
exhibitwas
wasirrelevant
irrelevant

totothe
thepresent
presentcase
caseand
andwould
wouldbe
behighly
highlyconfusing
confusingtotothe
thejury.
jury. Id.
Id.atat34.
34. Upon
Uponreview
reviewof
ofthe
the

27
27
record, the Court
record, the Court is
is satisfied
satisfied with
with its
its decision
decision to
to sustain,
sustain, and
and explanation for sustaining,
explanation for sustaining, the
the

7
Commonwealth's relevance
Commonwealth's relevance objection.
objection.7

Defendant sought
Defendant to introduce
sought to introduce into
into evidence
evidence aa Monroeville
Monroeville Police
Police Department
Department

Investigation report
Investigation regarding aa fraud
report regarding fraud investigation.
investigation. Id. at 32,
Id. at ln. 21-25;
32, In. 21-25; see
see also Defendant's
also Defendant’s

Omnibus Pretrial
Omnibus Pretrial Motion
Motion Briefing,
Briefing, 3/7/2024,
3/7/2024, Defendant’s
Defendant's Ex.
Ex. B. The Commonwealth
B. The Commonwealth objected
objected

to the
to the document
document on
on grounds
grounds of
ofrelevance
relevance and
andargued
arguedthe
the document
documentwould
wouldbe
beconfusing
confusingtotothe
the

jury. "Relevance
jury. Relevance isisthe
thethreshold
thresholdfor
foradmissibility ofevidence.”
admissibilityof evidence." Commonwealth
Commonwealthv.v. Tyson, 119
Tyson, 119

A.3d353,
A.3d 353,358
358(Pa.
(Pa. Super.
Super.2015).
2015). Pursuant
PursuanttotoRule
Ruleof
ofEvidence
Evidence401,
401,evidence
evidenceisisrelevant
relevantif:if:“(a)
"(a)

itithas
hasany tendencytotomake
anytendency makeaafact
factmore
moreororless
lessprobable thanititwould
probablethan wouldbe
bewithout
withoutthe
theevidence
evidence

and(b)
and thefact
(b)the factisisof
ofconsequence
consequenceinindetermining
determiningthe
theaction.”
action." Pa.R.E.
Pa.R.E.401.
401. Moreover,
Moreover,

"[e]vidence
[e]videnceisisrelevant
relevantififititlogically tendstotoestablish
logicallytends establishaamaterial
materialfact
factininthe
thecase,
case,tends
tendstotomake
makeaa

factatatissue
fact issuemore
moreororless
lessprobable
probableororsupports
supportsaareasonable
reasonableinference
inferenceororpresumption
presumptionregarding
regardinga a

materialfact.
material fact."Tyson, 119A.3d
Tyson,119 A.3datat358.
358. However,
However,“[t]he courtmay
"[t]hecourt excluderelevant
mayexclude relevantevidence
evidenceitit

itsitsprobative
probativevalue
valueisisoutweighed
outweighedby
bythe
thedanger of... unfairprejudice,
dangerof...unfair confusingthe
prejudice,confusing theissues,
issues,

misleadingthe
misleading thejury, unduedelay,
jury,undue delay,wasting time,ororneedlessly
wastingtime, needlesslypresenting cumulativeevidence.”
presentingcumulative evidence."

RuleofofEvidence
Rule Evidence403.
403. This
ThisCourt
Courtsustained
sustainedthe
theCommonwealth’s
Commonwealth'srelevance
relevanceobjection
objectionasasthe
the

MonroevillePolice
Monroeville PoliceDepartment Investigationreport
DepartmentInvestigation wasentirely
reportwas unrelatedtotothe
entirelyunrelated thepresent case.
presentcase.

Defendantsought
Defendant soughttotointroduce
introduceinto
intoevidence
evidencecopies
copiesofofemails
emailsbetween
betweenthird
thirdparties
partiesnot
not

testifyingatattrial.
testifying trial.Pretrial
PretrialConference
ConferenceHr’g 31,In.In.3-11;
Hr'gTr.Tr.atat31, 3-11;44-47;
44-47;53-54;
53-54;see
seealso Pretrial
alsoPretrial

Conference,4/8/2024,
Conference, 4/8/2024,Ex.
Ex.C(B).
C(B).Defendant
Defendantadvised
advisedthe
theCourt
Courtthat
thathehedid
didnot
notintend
intendonon

presentingany
presenting witnessestototestify
anywitnesses testifyregarding
regardingthethemail
emailcommunications.
communications.Id.Id.at at45,45,In.ln.4-13.
4-13.

7 Defendant also sought to introduce into evidence a copy of a receipt from Monroeville Messenger Service to
7Defendant also sought to introduce into evidence a copy of a receipt from Monroeville Messenger Service to
establish
establish that
that thethe civil
civil complaint
complaint hadhad been
been notarized.Id.Id.
notarized. at at
30,30,
In. ln. 3-24.The
3-24. The Court
Court sustained
sustained thethe Commonwealth's
Commonwealth’s
objection,
objection, ruling
ruling that
that thethe exhibit
exhibit was
was irrelevant
irrelevant to to
thethe present
present case
case andand would
would be be confusing
confusing to to
thethe jury.Id.Id.
j’ury. at 39-40.
at 39-40.

2828
lodged aa
Commonwealth lodged
The Commonwealth
self-authenticating. The
were self-authenticating.
emails were
the emails
that the
argued that
Defendant argued
Defendant

relevance to lack
objected to
also objected
and also
objection, and
relevance objection, authentication. Id.
of authentication.
lack of at 44,
Id. at ln. 16-23.
44, In. The Court
16-23. The Court

sustained Commonwealth's objection
the Commonwealth’s
sustained the and precluded
objection and from entering
Defendant from
precluded Defendant the documents
entering the documents

and adequately
foundation and
proper foundation
lay aa proper
to lay
witness to
presenting aa witness
without presenting
trial without
at trial
evidence at
into evidence
into adequately

authenticate 901. See
Rule 901.
with Rule
accordance with
in accordance
documents, in
the documents,
authenticate the Commonwealth v.v. Koch,
See Commonwealth PA
2011 PA
Koch, 2011

with personal
witness with
ofaa witness
(Testimony of
2011) (“Testimony
Ct. 2011)
Super. Ct.
(Pa. Super.
1002 (Pa.
996, 1002
A.3d 996,
39 A.3d
201, 39
Super 201,
Super personal

The email
sufficient.") The
be sufficient.”)
can be
be can
to be
claimed to
what itit isis claimed
matter isis what
that aa matter
knowledge that
knowledge email

communications Defendant sought
communications Defendant have admitted
to have
sought to arenot
admittedare self-authenticating documents.
not self-authenticating documents.

Pa.R.E. prerequisitetoto admissibility.”
document] isis aaprerequisite
[ofaadocument]
"Authentication [of
902. “Authentication
Pa.R.E. 902. 1005.
Koch atat 1005.
admissibility." Koch

The statementsby
hearsaystatements
containedhearsay
communication contained
email communication
The email thirdparties
bythird werenot
whowere
partieswho testifying
nottestifying

irrelevantasasthey
wereirrelevant
communicationswere
emailcommunications
the email
Furthermore,the
trial. Furthermore,
atattrial. notrelate
didnot
theydid theissue
relatetotothe issue

Courtisis
theCourt
record,the
therecord,
ofthe
reviewof
Uponreview
case. Upon
presentcase.
thepresent
regardingthe
innocenceregarding
orinnocence
guiltor
ofguilt
of

theCommonwealth's
sustaining,the
forsustaining,
explanationfor
andexplanation
sustain,and
decisiontotosustain,
itsdecision
withits
satisfiedwith
satisfied Commonwealth's

objection ConferenceHr’g
PretrialConference
relevance. Pretrial
andrelevance.
authenticationand
ofauthentication
groundsof
ongrounds
objectionon 46,In.
Tr.,46,
Hr'gTr., 6-19,
ln.6-19,

4/8/2024.
4/8/2024.

Defendant regardingaa
sheetregarding
docketsheet
civildocket
copyofofaacivil
evidenceaacopy
intoevidence
introduceinto
soughttotointroduce
Defendantsought

federal Pennsylvaniaatat
DistrictofofPennsylvania
WesternDistrict
Court,Western
DistrictCourt,
StatesDistrict
UnitedStates
theUnited
filedininthe
actionfiled
civilaction
federalcivil

Docket 16-22;36,
29,In.ln.16-22;
Id.atat29,
2:23-CV-01370-LPL. Id.
No.2:23-CV-01370-LPL.
DocketNo. 36,In.ln.9-11;
9-11;see
seealso Defendant's
alsoDefendant’s

Omnibus action
civilaction
relatestotoa acivil
sheetrelates
docketsheet
Thedocket
ExhibitD.D.The
3/7/2024,Exhibit
Briefing,3/7/2024,
MotionBriefing,
PretrialMotion
OmnibusPretrial

filed defendant.
nameddefendant.
Moritzisisa anamed
StevenMoritz
OfficerSteven
whichOfficer
1983ininwhich
U.S.C.§ §1983
under4242U.S.C.
Defendantunder
byDefendant
filedby

The relevancegrounds
exhibitononrelevance
theexhibit
presentationofofthe
thepresentation
objectedtotothe
Commonwealthobjected
TheCommonwealth andargued
groundsand argued

that thejury
thathe
issuesthat
theissues
confusethe
wouldconfuse
documentwould
thedocument
thathe wasresponsible
jurywas deciding.Id.Id.atat36,
fordeciding.
responsiblefor 36,

In.ln.9-15. TheCommonwealth
9-15.The furtherexplained
Commonwealthfurther OfficerMoritz
thatOfficer
explainedthat wouldnot
Moritzwould calledtototestify
notbebecalled testify

2929
at trial as he is active military and was deployed on
at trial as he is active military and was deployed
on aa ship. Id. at
ship. Id. at 37.
37. Defendant
Defendant argued that the
argued that the

document related to Officer Moritz's credibility. Id. The Court agreed with Defendant that the
document related to Officer Moritz’s credibility. Id. The Court agreed with Defendant that the
document may be
document may
be relevant
relevant if
ifOfficer
Officer Moritz
Moritz testified
testified at
at trial.
trial. Id.
Id. atat 37-38,
37-38, In.
ln. 38-3.
38-3. The
The Court
Court

withheld making a pretrial ruling regarding the Commonwealth's objections to the admissibility
withheld making a pretrial ruling regarding the Commonwealth’s objections to the admissibility

of
ofthe
thecivil
civildocket
docketsheet.
sheet. Id.
Id.

Defendant sought to introduce into evidence a copy of a Common Pleas of Allegheny
Defendant sought to introduce into evidence a copy of a Common Pleas of Allegheny
County Docket Sheet for Docket No. 8529-2019. Id. at 40, ln. 4-5. Defendant asserted that this
County Docket Sheet for Docket No. 8529-2019. Id. at 40, In. 4-5. Defendant asserted that this
document was relevant as it related to the credibility of Washington County Assistant District
document was relevant as it related to the credibility of Washington County Assistant District
AttorneyRachel
Attorney RachelWheeler
Wheeler(hereinafter
(hereinafter“ADA
"ADAWheeler”)
Wheeler")and
andthe
thecredibility
credibilityofofthe
the

Commonwealth's witnesses who, at a prior bail hearing, argued that Defendant was a flight risk.
Commonwealth’s witnesses who, at a prior bail hearing, argued that Defendant was a flight risk.

Id. 40,In.ln.19-25;
Id.atat40, 19-25;see
seealso
alsoDefendant’s
Defendant'sMotion
MotiontotoSet
SetBail
BailHr’g
Hr'gTr.,
Tr.,6/20/2023.
6/20/2023.Defendant
Defendant

furtherargued
further arguedthat
thatthis
thisdocument
documentwould
wouldestablish
establishthat
thatDefendant
Defendantwas
wasnot
nota aflight
flightrisk.
risk.The
The

Commonwealth objected to the presentation of the exhibit on relevance grounds and argued that
Commonwealth objected to the presentation of the exhibit on relevance grounds and argued that
the document would confuse the issues that the jury was responsiblefor
the document would confuse the issues that the jury was responsible
fordeciding.
deciding.Id.Id.atat40,
40,In.ln.

11-18. "Admission of evidence ... rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, which must
11-18. “Admission of evidence ... rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, which must
balance evidentiary value against the potentialdangers
balance videntiary value against the potential
dangersofof unfairly prejudicingthetheaccused,
unfairly prejudicing
accused,

inflaming the passions of the jury,oror
inflaming the passions of the jury, confusing
confusing
the jury."Commonwealth
the jury.”
Commonwealthv. v.Brown,
Brown,212
212 A.3d
A.3d
1076 (Pa.Super. 2019), quoting Commonwealth v. Bryant, 620 Pa. 218 (2013); see also Pa.R.E.
1076 (Pa.Super. 2019), quoting Commonwealth v. Bryant, 620 Pa. 218 (2013); see also Pa.R.E.
403 ("The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is outweighed by a danger
403 (“The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is outweighed by a danger
of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury,
of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury,
undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.") The trial court's
undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.”) The trial court's
ability must be trusted "to oversee the presentati

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11244813. Public record. Not legal advice.