The National Trial Lawyers | Top 100 Trial Lawyers AVVO Rating 10.0 Superb | Top Attorney Criminal Defense 10 Best 2014 | 4 years Client Satisfaction | American Institute of Criminal Law Attorneys WHO'S WHO | Top Professional | Certified 2017 top 100 lawyer ASLA 10 best 2016 client satisfaction| American Institute of personal injury Attorneys Top 10 Attorneys American Jurist Institute 2017 American Jurist Institute Top 10 Attorneys Personal Injury Attorney | Top 10 Attorney And Practice Magazines | 2017 Criminal Defense Attorney | Top 10 Attorney And Practice Magazines | 2019 America's top 100 Criminal Defense Attorneys | 2017 | top 100
Law Offices of Kelly & Conte Law Offices of Kelly & Conte
Call Anytime - Day or Night
610-314-7066 610-314-7066
Visa | Mastercard | American Express | Discover Network
The National Trial Lawyers | Top 100 Trial Lawyers
AVVO Rating 10.0 Superb | Top Attorney Criminal Defense
Nation's Premier | NACDA | Top Ten Ranking 2014
10 Best 2014 | 4 years Client Satisfaction | American Institute of Criminal Law Attorneys
2016 top 100 lawyer ASLA
10 best 2016 client satisfaction| American Institute of personal injury Attorneys
American Jurist Institute Top 10 Attorneys
Top 10 Attorneys American Jurist Institute 2017

Posts tagged "evidence"

Bad Act Evidence

Bad Act Evidence is something that has been very relevant in Pennsylvania criminal law recently. Specifically, this is true in the case of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs. Bill Cosby. In that case the Montgomery County District Attorney's Office is attempting to bring in Bad Act Evidence against Bill Cosby in order to show that he sexually assaulted the alleged victim. The government in that case attempted to bring in evidence that Cosby sexually assaulted more than a dozen Evidence other women in addition to the alleged victim that he is accused of sexually assaulting. The government tried to bring in this evidence of Cosby's alleged other crimes, in an attempt to show that he had the same motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident

Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 609

Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 609 pertains to when a witness may be impeached with a prior conviction.  Pennsylvania allows for either party, in a criminal case, to impeach any witness with a select category of prior convictions.  In Pennsylvania, this select category of prior convictions is known as "crimen falsi."  Crimen falsi means crimes involving dishonesty.  In order for a crime to be classified as crimen falsi, the offense must involve some element of deceit or dishonesty, ie theft or forgery.

Pennsylvania law re: the use of expert testimony

Pennsylvania law permits either party to introduce the use of expert testimony during trial, so long as the party complies with the rules of evidence.  The party must first assert that an expert is needed to give the type of testimony and evidence sought to be admitted.  Stated in other words, a court will only allow the testimony of an expert witness, if the testimony calls for scientific, technical, or other special knowledge, which a lay witness would be unable to testify.  Therefore, the party must show that there is an issue at trial that can only be resolved by that expert witness' testimony.

PA rule of evidence re: inconsistent statements

Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence allow a party to confront a witness with that witness's prior inconsistent statements.  The purpose of confronting a witness with a prior inconsistent statement is to attack that witness's credibility.  Often times this is done when a witness has given statements to the police and preliminary hearing testimony which differs from the witness's trial testimony.

Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence re: Crimen falsi

Under Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence, during trial, either party may attack the credibility of any witness with evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime involving dishonesty or false statement.  Generally, the conviction or the date of release from confinement, whichever is later, must be within 10 years from the date at which the witness is being impeached.

Bad Act Evidence - Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 404b

Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence generally prohibits the admission of what is know as "other bad act" evidence. Other bad act evidence is any evidence that references a bad act in the defendant's past. This evidence does not only apply to convictions or cases where criminal charges were filed, but includes uncharged bad acts as well. The purpose behind this exclusionary rule is to prevent the Commonwealth from admitting evidence to make the accused look like a bad person. In order for the Commonwealth to admit this type of evidence, it has the burden of proving this evidence does not go to show that a person is of bad character, but rather that the evidence can show the defendant's motive, intent, modus operand, knowledge, or plan. This evidence must be presented to the trial judge during a pre-trial motion. Lastly, admission of this type of evidence leads to the most reversible errors at the Superior Court.

Confrontation Clause

The central concern of the Confrontation Clause is to ensure the reliability of the evidence against a criminal defendant by subjecting it to rigorous testing in the context of an adversary proceeding before the trier of fact. The word "confront," after all, also means a clashing of forces or ideas, thus carrying with it the notion of adversariness.

Marital privilege dealing with testifying against one's spouse under Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence

This "privilege prevents a husband or wife from testifying against their spouse as to any communications which were made during the marital relationship."  The privilege remains in effect through death or divorce.  The confidential communication cannot be divulged without the consent of the other spouse.  The public policy sought to be enhanced by this privilege is the preservation of marital harmony and the resultant benefits to society from that harmony.  Communications between spouses are presumed to be confidential, and the party opposing application of the rule disqualifying such testimony bears the burden of overcoming this presumption.  In order for a confidential communication between spouses to be protected, knowledge must be gained through the marital relationship and in the confidence which that relationship inspires.  In order to be protected under § 5914, it is essential that the communication be made in confidence and with the intention it not be divulged.  "Therefore, whether a particular communication is privileged depends upon its nature and character of the circumstances under which it was said." Accordingly, if the nature of the communication is not imbued with an aura of a sharing disclosure precipitated largely due to the closeness spouses share, then arguably it is not privileged. 

Statements against penal interests exception to hearsay rule under Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence

Under Pennsylvania law for a statement to meet this hearsay exception the following five (5) criteria must be met: (1) the person must make a statement; (2) the speaker must have firsthand knowledge of the statement, (3) the speaker was, at the time of trial, unavailable as a witness; (4) the statement at the time of its making ... subjected himself to  criminal liability and a reasonable person in his position would not have made the statement unless believing it to be true;  and  (5) there is corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.

Hearsay Exception for statements made by a co-conspirator under Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence

Hearsay is a statement made out of court and offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.  Generally speaking, hearsay evidence is inadmissible during trial.  However, if the hearsay statement meets an exception, that statement can be admitted for its truth.  One of those exceptions is known as the exception for statements made by a co-conspirator.  Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to agree to commit acts that constitute a crime.

Why We Succeed


We prepare every case as if it is going to trial. Our reputation for thorough preparation puts us in a much stronger negotiating position with prosecutors and opposing counsel.

See what our clients are saying...


For more than 15 years, people throughout Chester County and the surrounding area have turned to Law Offices of Kelly & Conte for sound legal advice and aggressive representation.

Learn more about our team...


We will not accept a deal simply for the sake of closing your case. We care about your future, and we pursue every available option in an effort to secure the best possible outcome.

View our case results...
Schedule Your Free Consultation

Schedule a Free Case Evaluation

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.


West Chester Office
126 W Miner St #1
West Chester, PA 19382

Phone: 610-314-7066
Fax: 610-344-7585
Map & Directions

Pottstown Office
934 E High St #2
Pottstown, PA 19464

Phone: 610-314-7066
Fax: 610-344-7585
Map & Directions

Kennett Square Office
110 East State Street
Suite 305
Kennett Square, PA 19348

Phone: 610-314-7066
Phone: 610-422-7041
Fax: 610-344-7585
Map & Directions