For the Defense - Vol. 6 Issue 3 - 32

driver
suspected
or
arrested
for
DUI,
rendering the implied-consent statute
unconstitutional?
(2) Whether the Superior Court issued a
decision in conflict with and failed to
properly apply and follow the binding
legal precedent of the United States
Supreme Court in Mitchell v. Wisconsin, ___
U.S. ___, 139 S.Ct. 2525 (2019), by finding
that exigent circumstances did not exist
to support a warrantless request to test
Defendant's blood?
After Jones-Williams's vehicle collided with a train,
he was transported to the hospital. In connection with
medical treatment, hospital personnel drew his blood.
Because Jones-Williams was drifting in and out of
consciousness, he could not consent to a blood draw.
Without securing a warrant, the police requested that
the hospital's laboratory transfer the blood sample for
testing to determine the presence of drugs or alcohol.
The hospital's lab complied, and Jones-Williams was
found to have been under the influence of marijuana.
Jones-Williams argued that, in light of Birchfield
v. North Dakota13
and Commonwealth v. Myers,14
Sections 3755(a) and 1547(a) no longer serve as
independent exceptions to the warrant requirement.
The Superior Court agreed, holding that motorists,
whether conscious or unconscious, must be given the
opportunity to choose whether to exercise the right
of refusal or provide actual consent to a warrantless
blood draw and that Jones-Williams was deprived of
that opportunity. The Superior Court further held that
no exigency existed because the blood was taken by
hospital personnel before law enforcement officers
even arrived at the hospital. Thus, there existed no
concern that the evidence would dissipate.
Commonwealth v. Gallaway, 17 WAP 2021 (July 13,
2021)
Whether the Superior Court's holding
that the probative value of video evidence
displaying Mr. Gallaway in jail garb
outweighed the prejudicial effect of that
evidence and thus did not deprive Mr.
Gallaway of a fair trial conflicted with its
decision in Commonwealth v. Keeler, 264
A.2d 407 (Pa. Super. 1970) (en banc) and
with the Supreme Court of the United
States' decision in Estelle v. Williams, 425
U.S. 501 (1976)?
At Gallaway's trial, the trial court permitted the
Commonwealth to introduce a video of a police
interrogation that occurred while Gallaway was
32 For The Defense l Vol. 6, Issue 3
incarcerated. Gallaway objected on the grounds that
his appearance before the jury in prison clothing
violated his presumption of innocence and argued
that the probative value of the video was outweighed
by its danger of unfair prejudice. Both Keeler and
Williams recognized the presumption of guilt that is
communicated when a defendant appears before a
jury in prison clothing. The Superior Court denied relief
on the grounds that Gallaway appeared in court in
civilian clothing; that the video was played on the third
day of trial at the conclusion of the Commonwealth's
case and only after " considerable testamentary and
physical evidence connecting [Gallaway] to the crimes
[ ] " had been presented to the jury; that the video
depicting Gallaway in prison clothing was less than 20
minutes long; that the probative value outweighed
the prejudicial effect because it provided evidence of
Gallaway's consciousness of guilt; and that the jury
reasonably could infer that Gallaway was jailed on the
instant matter and not another matter.
Commonwealth v. Price, 18 WAP 2021 (July 28, 2021)
Did the Superior Court err in reversing
the order entered on October 15, 2019,
at paragraph 10 thereof, relating to
suppression of the search warrant issued on
October 28, 2016, at 1:15 P.M., which search
warrant failed to state probable cause
within the four-corners of its affidavit, on
the basis of inevitable discovery, inasmuch
as inevitable discovery was outside of that
raised in the concise statement pursuant
to Pa.R.A.P. 1925 and, by so doing, the
Superior Court went outside the fourcorners
of such search warrant's affidavit?
In this case, the trial court granted Price's motion
to suppress on the grounds that the search warrant
was not supported by probable cause.15
On appeal,
the Commonwealth argued that the warrant was
supported by probable cause and, even if it was not,
the police inevitably would have discovered the at-issue
evidence. The Commonwealth's argument hinged on
the fact that it possessed information when it applied
for the search warrant that it omitted from the affidavit,
and that the additional information would have
permitted discovery of the at-issue evidence through a
subsequent warrant. The Superior Court agreed with
the Commonwealth's argument, holding that " even
if the warrant application did not establish probable
cause, the evidence was nonetheless admissible under
the doctrine of inevitable discovery. " The Superior
Court reasoned that there was " no evidence that the
omission of the additional information establishing
probable cause from the warrant application resulted
from police
misconduct [ ] " and that the police
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/PACDL/FORTHEDEFENSE_vol6_issue2_2021/index.php#/p/14
For the Defense - Vol. 6 Issue 3

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of For the Defense - Vol. 6 Issue 3
