At the preliminary hearing, the Commonwealth must present a prima facie case, or in other words, they must show enough evidence that a crime has been committed and that the defendant is most likely the one who committed the crime.
The preliminary hearing is like a mini-trial. The prosecution will call witnesses and introduce evidence, and the defense can cross-examine witnesses.
A criminal defendant will not receive a sentence or even a finding of guilt or innocence at the preliminary hearing.Jan 9, 2022
Once the preliminary hearing is over, the case is ready to head to trial. The prosecution can move forward with its case against you. The court will likely get your case on the docket within a few days of your preliminary hearing, although the actual trial date may be several weeks or even months down the road.
Preliminary hearings serve to protect the defendant from unfounded criminal charges—making sure the prosecutor has sufficient evidence to allow a criminal trial to go forward.
During a preliminary hearing, the prosecutor presents evidence (which can be witnesses, documents and physical evidence) that the defendant committed the charged crimes. The purpose of a preliminary hearing is for the judge to determine if there is sufficient evidence to bind the defendant over to stand trial.Aug 21, 2021
The most important factor in deciding whether to prosecute is: if there is sufficient evidence for conviction.
(b) Each party may be granted one continuance by the Magisterial District Judge upon cause shown. Any such initial continuance, made at the request of either party, shall not be for more than twenty-one (21) days.
Arraignment - A hearing in which the defendant is formally charged and can plead either guilty, not guilty or no contest. In felony cases, an arraignment follows a preliminary hearing.
The preliminary hearing occurs in front of a court magistrate in the district of PA where you were arrested. If the magistrate finds there is enough evidence to go to trial, your case will then be moved to the Court of Common Pleas where the criminal trial will take place.
The prosecutor has one year after the discovery of the offense to bring charges, with a maximum extension of three years.
Following Formal Arraignment, the Defendant will be given an opportunity to review the evidence in the case, negotiate terms of disposition and decide on a trial or a plea to the offenses.Jan 24, 2020
On June 24, 1988, a jury found Guy Grazier guilty of murder of the first degree. Grazier then filed post-trial motions in which he alleged that his trial counsel had been ineffective. Therefore, a new lawyer was appointed to represent him, and an evidentiary hearing was held.
As a general rule, however, a defendant must show irreconcilable differences between himself and his court appointed counsel before a trial court will be reversed for abuse of discretion in refusing to appoint new counsel. See: Commonwealth v.
Under these circumstances, appellant is not entitled to a new trial merely because his counsel failed to move in *211 limine to exclude evidence of his prior conviction for robbery.
Therefore, trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to move pre-trial to quash the information on grounds that pre-arrest delay had violated due process. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a motion in limine to exclude evidence of appellant's prior conviction for robbery.
The pathologist's opinion was that he had been killed by blunt force trauma and manual strangulation. On January 4, 1988, Guy Grazier, a nephew of the deceased, was charged with the murder of his uncle.
However, defense counsel was able to elicit from Dr. Rozin, who testified from Dr. Larkin's notes, that Larkin believed the killer to be left-handed. *210 Defense counsel also produced evidence at trial that appellant was right-handed.
Post-trial relief was denied, however, and Grazier was sentenced to prison for the term of his natural life. Thereafter, post-trial counsel was allowed to withdraw, and the trial court appointed the Public Defender to represent Grazier. A timely appeal was filed by the Public Defender on Grazier's behalf.
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Guy Thomas GRAZIER, Appellant.
Before FLAHERTY, C.J., and ZAPPALA, CAPPY, CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN and SAYLOR, JJ. Guy T. Grazier, pro se. Thomas N. Farrell, Michael W. Streily, Pittsburgh, for Com.
At a Grazier hearing, the court determines whether the defendant had validly waived his right to counsel during a PCRA hearing. In addition, the court must conduct an inquiry to ensure that the defendant is waiving his right knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently.
A PCRA evidentiary hearing was held on September 24, 2013. Thereafter, defendant filed a motion to request the court to dismiss his appointed counsel and allow him to proceed pro se and file an amended PCRA petition. On November 8, 2013, the court allowed appointed counsel to be dismissed/withdrawn, but denied defendant’s request ...
The appellate court found that the inquiry made by the PCRA court did not meet the standards of a Grazier hearing. Further, the court erred by preventing defendant from filing an amended PCRA petition to assert an IAC claim. On April 14, 2015, the PCRA’s November Order was reversed.
On June 12, 2009, the trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 336 to 888 months of prison time.
Defendant’s issue in the appeal is that the PCRA court erred by refusing to allow him to represent himself, which then prevented him from raising a Brady Violation claim. In addition, he alleged his appointed counsel was ineffective, and the court erred by not allowing defendant to file a pro se amended PCRA petition after the evidentiary hearing to include the IAC claim.
Nenner Law PCRA counsel filed an appeal on behalf of his client, and on April 14, 2015, a judge from the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County granted the appeal from a PCRA Order entered on November 12, 2013.
On November 8, 2013, the court allowed appointed counsel to be dismissed/withdrawn, but denied defendant’s request to file a pro se amended PCRA petition which raised an ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) claim against appointed PCRA counsel.