Com. v. Goins, D. ( 2023 )

J-A10036-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
DERRICK GOINS :
:
Appellant : No. 513 EDA 2022
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 13, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Criminal Division
at No(s): CP-46-CR-0006411-2019
MEMORANDUM PER CURIAM: FILED JUNE 20, 2023
Derrick Goins appeals from the January 13, 2022 aggregate judgment
of sentence of life imprisonment imposed after a jury found him guilty of first-
degree murder and criminal conspiracy to commit murder.1 After careful
review, we affirm the judgment of sentence.
The factual history of this case was set forth at great length in the trial
court’s May 13, 2022 opinion and need not be reiterated in full here. See trial
court opinion, 5/13/22 at 3-36. The relevant facts and procedural history of
this case were summarized as follows:
[Appellant’s] convictions arose out of a conspiracy
with co-defendants, Kyshan Brinkley and Jacquan Lee,
to murder Keith Robinson, a rival drug dealer to the
home-grown Pottstown gang, Bud Gang Bitch
(“BGB”). On March 30, 2019, at about 10:53 p.m.,
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(a) and 903(a)(1), respectively.
J-A10036-23
the victim’s vehicle was sprayed with bullets, while the
victim was parked at the corner of York and Walnut
Streets, Pottstown. Two of the ten bullets hit the
victim and killed him. [Appellant] left the scene in a
black van with co-defendants Brinkley and Lee, and a
few minutes later arrived at the 206 [Manatawny]
Street apartment complex.
Specifically[,] as to [Appellant], earlier in the evening
of March 30, 2019, [Appellant] was with his co-
defendants Brinkley and Lee at a gathering. Several
witnesses identified [Appellant] as being present at
the Chestnut and Evans Streets gathering location.
Witnesses observed [Appellant] leave there with his
co[-]defendants and Elijah Davis in a black van. A
short time later, a black van was captured twice on
surveillance in the vicinity of the victim’s car, actually
circling the victim’s car. A witness who was in the
area of the murder scene, just prior to the murder,
observed [Appellant] pacing in an alleyway. After the
murder, [Appellant] was observed at 206 Manatawny
Street apartment complex, the BGB gang trap house,
along with his co-defendants. Additionally,
[Appellant’s] cell phone records from the night of the
murder show that the movements of his cell phone
were consistent with those of co-defendant Brinkley’s
cell phone, that put both in the area of the murder at
the relevant time, traveling back to 206 Manatawny
Street, then a short time later their cell phones
traveled to a gas station, and then to the Uncut club
in Philadelphia. Surveillance footage corroborates
that a black van was at the murder scene, at 206
Manatawny Street, and at a nearby gas station at
times that match up to the cell phone records. The
surveillance at the gas station depicted [Appellant]
exiting the black van. Finally, the evidence showed
that [Appellant] had rented a black dodge caravan
minivan on March 29, 2019 and returned it April 2,
2019.
Id. at 1-2.
-2-
J-A10036-23
Appellant was subsequently arrested in connection with this incident and
proceeded to a joint jury trial alongside his co-defendants on January 3, 2022.
At trial, Commonwealth presented testimony from 32 witnesses and the
defendants presented testimony from an additional 6 witnesses. Following an
eight-day jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of first-degree murder and
criminal conspiracy to commit murder. On January 13, 2022, the trial court
sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of life imprisonment. Appellant
filed timely post-sentence motions that were ultimately denied by the trial
court on January 31, 2022.
Thereafter, on February 16, 2022, Appellant filed a timely notice of
appeal.2 On February 17, 2022, the trial court ordered Appellant to file a
concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, in accordance with
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant filed a timely concise statement on March 2,
2022, and the trial court filed its comprehensive Rule 1925(a) opinion on May
13, 2022.
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
1. [Whether the t]rial court made an error of law
and abused its discretion in failing to grant
Appellant’s motion to sever as the Appellant was
prejudiced by having his co-defendants tried at
the same time when there were several pieces
of evidence admitted in front of the jury that
would have been inadmissible against the
Appellant if he had a separate trial, including but
____________________________________________
2Appellant’s co-defendants, Kyshan Brinkley and Jacquan Lee, filed related
appeals at No. 549 EDA 2022 and No. 547 EDA 2022, respectively.
-3-
J-A10036-23
not limited to: codefendant’s Instagram and
social media posts, codefendants’ sworn grand
jury testimony, codefendant’s confession,
evidence of co-defendants’ prior drug activities,
gang activities, and rap videos[?]
In addition, all the specific bad acts evidence
only applied to the Appellant’s codefendants and
resulted in an unfair trial, no matter how many
cautionary instructions the court made.
2. [Whether the trial c]ourt made an error of law
and abuse of discretion in allowing Lt. Erick
Echev[a]rria to testify as a gang expert, when
there was no testimony or evidence
presented[:] 1) that [Appellant] was in the
gang Bud Gang Bitch [(“BGB”);] 2) that
[Appellant] was involved in any gang activity in
the last 10 to 15 years[;] and 3) that
[Appellant] was involved in any drug activity or
had any connection to the “trap” house located
at 206 Manatawny[?]
Furthermore, the [trial] court made an error of
law and abuse of discretion in failing to give a
cautionary instruction as it related to Lt. Erick
Echevarria’s testimony, and in failing to advise
the jury that none of the testimony of said
witness could be used against [Appellant].
3. [Whether the trial c]ourt made an error of law
and abuse of discretion in allowing Lt. Erick
Echeverria to testify as a gang expert witness,
as Lt. Erick Echev[a]rria was not able to give
any specific information related to the Bud Gang
Bitch (“BGB”) gang’s hierarchy organization
structure, or specific acts of the gang or its
affiliates, and provided only nonspecific
information regarding characteristics of gangs
in general[?]
Lt. Erick Echev[a]rria’s entire testimony was
speculative and conjecture as it related to BGB.
-4-
J-A10036-23
4. [Whether the trial c]ourt made an error of law
and abuse of discretion in allowing 404(b)
evidence in trial where the Commonwealth
failed to provide any actual notice of a 404(b)
filing and the 404(b) evidence, including drug
dealing, possession of weapons and drugs, and
social media posts was not related to
[Appellant] [?]
5. [Whether the trial c]ourt made an error of law
and abuse of discretion in allowing the playing
of rap videos and publication of written lyrics
associated with said videos as their very limited
probative value, if any, was greatly outweighed
by their prejudicial effect and there was no
evidence presented that [Appellant] was
involved in any way with said rap videos[?]
6. [Whether the trial c]ourt made an error of law
and abuse of discretion in denying Appellant’s
motion in limine to preclude evidence of gang
affiliation[?]
7. [Whether the trial] court made an error of law
and abuse of discretion in denying Appellant’s
motion in limine to preclude evidence of rap
videos and lyrics[?]
8. [Whether the trial c]ourt made an error of law
and abuse of discretion in giving the
consciousness of guilty/flight instruction based
upon the testimony elicited at trial[?]
Appellant submits that there was no evidence
of flight.
9. [Whether t]he jury’s verdict was against the
weight of the evidence because the weight of
the evidence demonstrated a reasonable doubt
as to whether the Appellant had committed the
crimes charged[?]
10. [Whether t]he trial court committed an error law
in denying Appellant’s post sentence motion for
-5-
J-A10036-23
judgment of acquittal based upon the fact that
evidence introduced at trial was not legally
sufficient to support the verdict because the
evidence failed to establish each material
element of the crimes charged and the
commission thereof by the Appellant beyond a
reasonable doubt, including the charge of
conspiracy and murder in the first degree[?]
Appellant’s brief at 4-9 (extraneous capitalization omitted).
I. Severance
Appellant first argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying
his motion to sever his case from that of his co-defendants. Id. at 34-41.
A motion for severance is addressed to the sound
discretion of the trial court, and ... its decision will not
be disturbed absent a manifest abuse of discretion.
The critical consideration is whether the appellant was
prejudiced by the trial court’s decision not to sever.
The appellant bears the burden of establishing such
prejudice.
Commonwealth v. Page, 59 A.3d 1118, 1133 (Pa.Super. 2013) (citation
omitted), appeal denied, 80 A.3d 776 (Pa. 2013).
Our Rules of Criminal Procedure provide as follows:
(1) Offenses charged in separate indictments or
informations may be tried together if:
(a) the evidence of each of the offenses would
be admissible in a separate trial for the other
and is capable of separation by the jury so that
there is no danger of confusion; or
(b) the offenses charged are based on the same
act or transaction.
-6-
J-A10036-23
Pa.R.Crim.P. 582(A). Furthermore, “[t]he court may order separate trials of
offenses or defendants, or provide other appropriate relief, if it appears that
any party may be prejudiced by offenses or defendants being tried together.”
Pa.R.Crim.P. 583.
II-III. Expert Opinion Testimony
Appellant next argues the trial court abused its discretion in allowing
opinion Lieutenant Erick Echevarria to testify as an expert in gang structure
and organization and drug trafficking. Appellant’s brief at 44-47.
It is well settled that expert testimony is admissible if it concerns a
subject beyond the knowledge, information, or skill possessed by the average
layperson, as phenomena and situations that are matters of common
knowledge may not be the subject of expert testimony. Pa.R.E. 702.
[I]n cases involving the admission of expert testimony
. . . the admission of expert testimony is a matter left
largely to the discretion of the trial court, and its
rulings thereon will not be reversed absent an abuse
of discretion. An expert’s testimony is admissible
when it is based on facts of record and will not cause
confusion or prejudice.
Commonwealth v. Huggins, 68 A.3d 962, 966 (Pa.Super. 2013) (citation
omitted), appeal denied, 80 A.3d 775 (Pa. 2013).
IV-VII. Admissibility of Prior Bad Act Evidence
-7-
J-A10036-23
Appellant next argues that the trial court abused its discretion admitting
prior bad act evidence, including various gang-related evidence and the
admission of rap videos and lyrics. Appellant’s brief at 41-43, 47-51.
“[T]he admission of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial
court and will be reversed only upon a showing that the trial court clearly
abused its discretion.” Commonwealth v. Fransen, 42 A.3d 1100, 1106
(Pa.Super. 2012) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 76 A.3d 538 (Pa. 2013).
It is well settled that “evidence of prior crimes is not admissible for the
sole purpose of demonstrating a criminal defendant’s propensity to commit
crimes.” Commonwealth v. Melendez-Rodriguez, 856 A.2d 1278, 1283
(Pa.Super. 2004) (en banc); see also Pa.R.E. 404(b)(1). Nevertheless,
“[e]vidence may be admissible in certain circumstances where it is relevant
for some other legitimate purpose and not utilized solely to blacken the
defendant’s character.” Id. Specifically, evidence of other crimes or bad acts
is admissible evidence of other crimes may be introduced to show:
motive; intent; absence of mistake or accident; a
common scheme or plan; and identity. The evidence
may also be admissible to impeach the credibility of a
testifying defendant; to show that the defendant has
used the prior bad acts to threaten the victim; and in
situations where the bad acts were part of a chain or
sequence of events that formed the history of the case
and were part of its natural development.
Commonwealth v. Reid, 811 A.2d 530, 550 (Pa. 2002) (citations and
numeration omitted), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 850 (2003); see also Pa.R.E.
404(b)(2). When offered for a legitimate purpose, evidence of prior crimes or
-8-
J-A10036-23
bad acts is admissible “if the probative value of the evidence outweighs its
potential for unfair prejudice.” Commonwealth v. Hairston, 84 A.3d 657,
665 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 574 U.S. 863 (2014).
VIII. Jury Instructions
Appellant next argues that the trial court erred by providing the jury
with the consciousness of guilt/flight jury instruction. Appellant’s brief at 51-
52.
“[A] trial court has broad discretion in phrasing its instructions, and may
choose its own wording so long as the law is clearly, adequately, and
accurately presented to the jury for its consideration.” Commonwealth v.
Charleston, 94 A.3d 1012, 1021 (Pa.Super. 2014), appeal denied, 104 A.3d
523 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted). “A jury charge will be deemed erroneous
only if the charge as a whole is inadequate, not clear or has a tendency to
mislead or confuse, rather than clarify, a material issue.” Commonwealth
v. Sandusky, 77 A.3d 663, 667 (Pa.Super. 2013).
IX. Weight of the Evidence
Appellant next argues that the jury’s verdict was not supported by the
weight of the evidence. Appellant’s brief at 57-58.
This Court has recognized that “[a]n allegation that the verdict is against
the weight of the evidence is addressed to the discretion of the trial court.”
-9-
J-A10036-23
Commonwealth v. Galvin, 985 A.2d 783, 793 (Pa. 2009) (citation omitted),
cert. denied, 559 U.S. 1051 (2010).
[W]here the trial court has ruled on the weight claim
below, an appellate court’s role is not to consider the
underlying question of whether the verdict is against
the weight of the evidence. Rather, appellate review
is limited to whether the trial court palpably abused
its discretion in ruling on the weight claim.
Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 40 A.3d 1250, 1253 (Pa.Super. 2012) (citation
omitted).
Because the trial judge has had the opportunity to
hear and see the evidence presented, an appellate
court will give the gravest consideration to the
findings and reasons advanced by the trial judge when
reviewing a trial court’s determination that the verdict
is against the weight of the evidence.
....
Discretion is abused where the course pursued
represents not merely an error of judgment, but
where the judgment is manifestly unreasonable or
where the law is not applied or where the record
shows that the action is a result of partiality,
prejudice, bias or ill-will.
Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1055 (Pa. 2013) (citations and
emphasis omitted).
X. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Lastly, Appellant argues that there was insufficient evidence to sustain
his conviction for first-degree murder and criminal conspiracy to commit
murder. Appellant’s brief at 52-57.
- 10 -
J-A10036-23
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we must
determine whether the evidence admitted at trial and
all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in
the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as
verdict winner, is sufficient to prove every element of
the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. As an
appellate court, we may not re-weigh the evidence
and substitute our judgment for that of the fact-
finder. Any question of doubt is for the fact-finder
unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that
as a matter of law no probability of fact can be drawn
from the combined circumstances.
Commonwealth v. Thomas, 988 A.2d 669, 670 (Pa.Super. 2009) (citations
omitted), appeal denied, 4 A.3d 1054 (Pa. 2010).
Following a thorough review of the record, including the briefs of the
parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the trial court, it
is our determination that Appellant’s claims on appeal warrant no relief. In
its extensive 67-page opinion, the trial court comprehensively discussed each
of Appellant’s allegations of error and concluded that they are without merit
or waived. See trial court opinion, 5/13/22 at 36-66. We find that the trial
court’s conclusions are supported by competent evidence and are clearly free
of legal error.
Accordingly, we adopt the comprehensive May 13, 2022 opinion of the
Honorable William R. Carpenter as our own for purposes of this appellate
review.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
- 11 -
J-A10036-23
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/20/2023
- 12 -
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY
PENNSYLVANIA
CRIMINAL DIVISION
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: CP-46-CR-0006411-2019
V.
Jt)
DERRICK GOINS 513 EDA 2022
1925(a) OPINION
CARPENTER J. MAY 13, 2022
INTRODUCTION
-·<
Appellant, Derrick Goins ("Goins"), appeals from his judgment of
sentence entered on January 13, 2022, following his conviction of first-degree
murder and criminal conspiracy. Goins was sentenced to a life term of
imprisonment.
Goins' convictions arose out of a conspiracy with co-defendants,
Kyshan Brinkley and Jacquan Lee, to murder Keith Robinson, a rival drug
dealer to the home-grown Pottstown gang, Bud Gang Bitch ("BGB"). On March
30, 2019, at about 10:53 p.m., the victim's vehicle was sprayed with bullets,
while the victim was parked at the corner of York and Walnut Streets,
Pottstown. Two of the ten bullets hit the victim and killed him. Goins left the
scene in a black van with co-defendants Brinkley and Lee, and a few minutes
later arrived at the 206 Manatawey Street apartment complex.
Specifically as to Goins, earlier in the evening of March 30, 2019,
Goins was with his co-defendants Brinkley and Lee at a gathering. Several
witnesses identified Goins as being present at the Chestnut and Evans Streets
gathering location. Witnesses observed Goins leave there with his co-
defendants and -Elijah Davis in a black van. A short time later, a black van was
captured twice on surveillance in the vicinity of the victim's car, actually
circling the victim-'s car. A witness who was in the area of the murder scene,
just prior to the murder, observed Goins pacing in an alleyway. After the
murder, Goins was observed at 206 Manatawny Street apartment complex, the
BGB gang trap house, along with his co-defendants. Additionally, Goins' cell
phone records from the night of the murder show that the movements of his
cell phone were consistent with those of co-defendant Brinkley's cell phone,
that put both in the area of the murder at the relevant time, traveling back to
206 Manatawny Street, then a short time later their cell phones traveled to a
gas station, and then to the Uncut club in Philadelphia. Surveillance footage
corroborates that a black van was at the murder scene, at 206 Manatawny
Street, and at a nearby gas station at times that match up to the cell phone
records. The surveillance at the gas station depicted Goins exiting the black
van. Finally, the evidence showed that Goins had rented a black dodge caravan
minivan on March 29, 2019 and returned it April 2, 2019. With all this
evidence the jury convicted Goins of conspiring with his co-defendants to
murder the victim.
2
On appeal, Goins alleges error in several pre-trial rulings, denying
his motion to sever, admitting various gang-related evidence, including the
drug expert opinion of Lieutenant Erick Echevarria and the admission of rap
videos and lyrics; providing the jury with the consciousness of guilt/ flight jury
instruction; the weight of the evidence; and the sufficiency of the evidence.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On January 3, 2022, the eight-day trial commenced where the
following facts were established. The Commonwealth first presented the trial
testimony of Gregory Byrd, the victim's younger brother. (N.T., Trial by Jury,
Day 2 of 8, 1 / 4 /22. P. 65). Mr. Byrd testified that his brother was living in
Pottstown and had lived there for about 18 years, however, he was born and
raised in Philadelphia. Id. 66 - 67. The victim was 41-years-old at the time of
his murder, and was also known as Naz and Esco. Id. at 65, 67, 84. At the time
of his murder, Mr. Robinson worked in construction, and he also sold cocaine
with Mr. Byrd. Id . at 68.
In the morning of March 30, 2019, Mr. Byrd was selling drugs,
while his brother was out riding his motorcycle. Id. at 69. He delivered drugs to
individuals he knew as KK and Valerie. Id. Mr. Byrd and the victim met up
later that day, but went their separate ways at 10:00 p.m., until the victim
returned to help him with a flat tire. Id. at 70 - 72. The victim arrived in a
green Infinity Jeep, and drove his brother back to his apartment. Id. at 72 - 73.
That was the last time they saw each other. Id. at 74.
3
. At approximat ely 10:53 p.m., Officer Andrew Licwinko of the
Pottstown Borough Police Departmen t, responded to the area of York Street
and Walnut Street in Pottstownfo r shots fired in that area. Id. at 98, 99 - 100.
Upon his arrival there he observed a dark-colore d Infinity parkec;i close to the
intersection , with the passenger window broken out. Id. at 100. A volunteer
firefighter was on the driver's side tending to a male, who was slumped over in
the driver's seat, and later identified as Keith Robinson. Id. at 100 - 101.
Officer Licwinko, along with the firefighter, pulled the victim from his car. Id. at
101. He had multiple gunshot wounds to his chest and neck, and no pulse. Id.
The victim was transported to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead. Id.
at 102. Officer Licwinko secured the crime scene and identified eight spent
shell casings. Id. at 105 - 106.
Karen Clarke was a resident of 128 North York Street, in March of
2019. Id. at 140. Ms. Clarke, a/k/a KK, lived in the first floor apartment and
Valerie Miller was her neighbor in the second floor apartment. Id. at 141, 144.
Ms. Clarke knew the victim, who she called Naz, because she bought cocaine
from him in the past. Id. at 142. On the day of the murder, Ms. Clarke texted
the victim around 7:00 p.m. and then around 10:00 p.m. At 10:47, the Mr.
Robinson texted back, "Outside." Ms. Clarke alerted Ms . Miller that the victim
was there. Id. at 150. A few minutes later, Ms. Clarke heard gunshots. Id. at
150. Ms. Clarke made her way to the front door and yelled to Ms. Miller to
come back inside. Id. Ms. Miller got out of the car and said, "Oh, my God, Naz
been shot. So call 9 - 1-1." Id. Ms. Clarke retrieved her phone from inside the
4
house, and went outside by the driver's side of the victim's car and called 9-1-
1. Id. at 150-151.
Valerie Miller testified that she knew the Mr. Robinson through his
girlfriend, Renada. Id . at 179. On March 30, 2019, she and Ms . Clarke were
trying to buy drugs from him. Id . at 180. At some point when the victim was
there, Ms. Miller got into his car, and while in the car she heard gunshots
being fired. Id. at 181 - 182.
Dr. Gregory McDonald, the Chief Deputy Coroner for Montgomer y
County, performed an autopsy on the victim on March 31, 2019. Id. at 209,
217. Dr. McDonald's examinatio n revealed two entrance gunshot wounds, one
on the right side of the neck and the other to the right side of the chest. Id. at
218. Dr. McDonald concluded that the victim died of multiple gunshot wounds.
Id. at 227. He opined that either gunshot wound was potentially fatal, and that
the victim would have died within several minutes from these injuries. Id.
Detective Robert Turner, a detective with the Montgomer y County
Detective Bureau - Forensic Services Unit, was called to the scene of the crime
and arrived around 12: 15 a.m. Id. at 234, 237 - 238. Detective Turner did a
scene walk-throu gh. Id. at 239 . The detective testified that based upon the
shell casings that were identified, shooter would have about 30 feet to 46 feet
away from the passenger door of the victim's vehicle. Id.- at 243 - 244. Detective
Turner recovered nine spent shell casings. Id. at 245. They were all .40-caliber,
manufactu rer was Smith and Wesson and two brands, Blazer and CBC. Id. at
247 - 248.
5
Detective Turner was contacted by Lieutenant Kuklentz about
twenty minutes after his arrival to go to an additional location at 4 7 Beech
Street, about a block and a half from the crime scene. Id. at 260, 262. He and
Detective Schanes went there and spoke to Detective Kelly. Detective Kelly had
located a black jacket inside a residential dumpster right outside the 4 7 Beech
Street residence. Id. at 260 - 261. An orange Bic cigarette lighter was found in
the jacket's pocket. Id. at 266. Directly across from 4 7 Beech Street is 44 Beech
Street, and laying on the curb line on the roadway, the detective recovered
another .40-caliber Smith and Wesson, brand CBC spent, fired shell casing. Id.
at 268 - 269, 272.
Detective Kathleen Kelly, of the Montgomer y County Detective
Bureau responded to the crime scene in the area of York and Walnut Streets.
(N.T., Trial by Jury- Day 3 of 8, 1/5/22, p. 8). Detective Kelly and Detective
Mull from Pottstown, walked around the crime scene and found a jacket in a
trash can, located right in front of 47 Beech Street. Id. at 10 - 11, 12. The
jacket was laying right on top of the trash. Id. at 11.
Johnny Walker, the resident at 4 7 Beech Street, testified that on
March 30, 2019, he took the trash out around 4:00 or 4:30 p.m. Id. at 32. That
night he was on the couch in his first floor living room when he heard
gunshots. Id. at 33. He also heard the trash can lid open and .shut, and
someone put trash inside. Id. Mr. Walker told detectives that the jacket did not
belong to him or any other resident at 4 7 Beech Street. Id. at 34.
6
Elias Scipio, a volunteer firefighter back in March of 2019, and on
March 30, 2019, at around 10:00 or 10:30 p.m., he was on Walnut Street to
pick up his friend. Id. at 50 - 51. He was looking for parking, and when he
pulled into Union Alley, he witnessed a male walking towards his vehicle. Id. at
53. Mr. Scipio described the male as a light-skinn ed male, athletic build, with
twists in his hair. Id. The male was pacing back and forth. He started to
approach Mr. Scipio's vehicle, which made him feel uncomforta ble so he left
the alley. Id. at 54. Mr. Scipio got a good look at the individual and further
described him as wearing dark-colore d clothing, such as a dark-color hoodie or
jacket. Id. at 55, 57. On May 3, 2019, Mr. Scipio spoke with Lieutenant James
McGowen at the Pottstown Police Departmen t. Id. at 57 - 58, 96. There he
identified Goins as the individual he observed in the alleyway in a photo array.
Id. at 63, 65, 96.
After leaving the that neighborho od for a period of five minutes,
Mr. Scipio returned and observed a vehicle sitting on the corner with all of its
windows shattered and two females standing outside the vehicle. Id. at 67 - 68.
He got out of his car, and attempted to assist the victim. Id. at 68.
Lieutenant Todd Richard of the Montgomer y County Detective
Bureau - Homicide Unit and lead detective reviewed various items of video
surveillanc e, namely footage from the Pottstown Borough cameras. Id. at 112 -
114. He was on alert to look for a black Dodge minivan, which had been
identified by witnesses as a vehicle that suspects were seen in before and after
the murder. Id. Also during the course of his investigatio n he received
7
informa tion that the suspect s were at a gatherin g on Chestn ut and Evans
Streets. Id. at 116.
The Commo nwealth played a video surveill ance clip taken about a
block and a half away from that gatherin g. Id. at 117. The lieutena nt identifie d
the black Dodge minivan which at 10:45 p.m. had left from Chestn ut Street
and turned onto Washin gton Street. Id. Additio nal video depicted the black
Dodge minivan at about 10:51 p.m., go westbou nd on Walnut Street and travel
on Walnut Street towards the intersec tion of Walnut and York Streets. Id. at
118, 120 - 121, 130. An individu al from the right side of the video frame
walked to the middle of the video frame, and the individu al goes out of the
frame at the top of the video. Id. at 134. The individu al runs back from the left
to the right of the video frame. Id. Further , video was obtaine d from 26 Walnut
Street, in which the audio recorde d gunsho ts at 10:52 p.m. Id. at 122 -
123, 126 - 128.
Jamar Baird 1 testified that on March 30, 2019, he was at the
Chestn ut and Evans Streets gatherin g, and he was there with "Key'', identifie d
in court as co-defe ndant Brinkley . Id. at 161 - 162. Mr. Baird acknow ledged
that at some point that night there was a plan to go to a club in Philade lphia.
Id. at 162. Before they drove down to the club, he went with "E" to Beech and
Manata wny. Id. at 163 - 164. Using the grand jury testimo ny to refresh his
Upon questioni ng by the Common wealth, Mr. Baird did not have any independ ent
-
memory of the events of March 30, 2019. (N.T., Trial by Jury - Day 3 of 8, 1/5/22, pp. 155
testimony taken on
156). The Common wealth presented him with a transcrip t of his grand jury
May 15, 2019. Id. at 157. He continue d to claim that he did not remembe r anything from
March 30, 2019. Id'. at 158 - 159. It did not refresh his recollecti on. Id. at 160.
8
recollection , Mr. Baird testified that "Swizz" "and them pulled off' from
Chestnut and Evans Street right before he left with "E." Id. at 165 - 166. Mr.
Baird identified in court that "Swizz" is co-defenda nt Lee . Id. at 167. According
to Mr. Baird's grand jury testimony, "D" might have been in the van with Swizz.
Id. at 166 - 167. He identified in court that "D" is co-defenda nt Goins. The
Court dismissed Mr. Baird, subject to recall. Id. at 170.
Jahtae Booker, was also at the gathering at Chestnut and Evans
Streets. Id. at 171. Mr. Booker testified that Goins was present. Id. at 193.
Several minutes after arriving, Ms. Booker left, and, at the direction of co-
defendant Lee, he dropped his friend off at 206 Manatawny Street. Id. at 171,
172 - 173. A short time later when he got to 206 Manatawny Street, Mr.
Booker heard gunshots coming from a distance . Id. at 174, 194. Mr. Booker
testified that Goins and co-defenda nt Lee were in the parking lot of 206
Manatawny Street. Id. at 174 - 175, 184. Mr. Booker left the area. Id. at 175.
Upon further questioning , Mr. Booker did not remember answers
to questions he previously testified to at a grand jury. Id. at 176. The
Commonwe alth introduced his June 5, 2019 grand jury testimony where he
testified that the vehicle he saw that went to the club in Philadelphi a was at the
Gulf gas station, and it was a van. Id. at 176 - 178. At the club, Mr. Booker
saw Goins, co-defenda nt Lee, and co-defenda nt Brinkley. Id. at 190. They all
stayed until closing time. Id. While nobody talked about the murder, people
were posting stuff about the victim's death. Id. at 191.
9
Additional video surveillance was recovered by both Detective
Brooke Hatfield and Detective Michael Glauner, both of the Pottstown Police
Department. The former recovered surveillance from 112 Walnut Street2 , 26
Walnut Street, and from the Gulf station 3 . Id. at 211 - 212. Detective Glauner
recovered video footage from the camera located at Chestnut and Washington
Streets. Id . at 265.
Comese Robinson, a resident of 107 Walnut Street, Unit F,
Foundry Apartments, testified that on the night of the murder, just before
11 :00 p.m ., she heard gunshots. Id. at 278, 280. After waiting about two
minutes, she saw a figure running though the parking lot on York Street
towards Beech Street. Id. at 280, 281. The figure was wearing all black and was
hunched over with something in his right pocket. Id . at 282. At the corner of
York and Beech streets, the figure went to turn onto Beech Street, but did an
about face and pulled the hood off his head. Id. at 283. There was a police
officer at the corner of Beech and York. Id. After the police drove by, the
individual continued to go back around the corner down Beech Street. Id . at
284 .
Robert Garcia, a resident of 48 Beech Street, testified that on
March 30, 2019, he was across the street from his house when he heard
gunfire. Id. at 298. He and his wife went back to their house, and as he set
2 Detective Hatfield testified that the time stamp on the video from 112 Wal.n ut Street was
one hour slow from real time. (N.T., Trial by Jury- Day 3 of 8, 1/5/22, p. 213).
3 The video from the Gulf station was about 15 minutes fast . Id.
stuff down inside the door he turned around and saw someone coming down
the sidewalk on Beech Street. Id. at 299. The person was about 25 yards south
of York Street headed toward Manatawny Street. Id . The person went right into
the alleyway, between 47 and 43 Beech Street, and stopped. Id. at 301. Mr.
Garcia testified that the person was wearing sweats and a hoodie, dark in
color. Id. at 302. The person had his right hand inside the right side of the
jacket or hoodie. Id. at 303 - 304.
Lieutenant Todd Richard was recalled to testify. (N.T., Trial by Jury
- Day 4 of 8, 1 /6/22, p. 11). Lieutenant Richard testified that the investigatio n
into the murder was lengthy. Id. at 12. On April 9, 2019, he became aware that
a black van was involved in the murder, and then investigato rs developed more
information about the van. Id. at 13. On April 10, 2019, video footage was
taken from the Gulf gas station, when he found out that location was relevant.
Id. at 13 - 14. He further discovered that 206 Manatawny Street location was
involved in this investigatio n, and he obtained video footage from there. Id. at
14. A drone video was also made in order to demonstrat e the crime scene, as to
where the shooting occurred, where the jacket was found, where the shell
casing was recovered, and the alleyway that they ran to after the shooting. Id.
at 14 - 15. Lieutenant Richard testified that to travel by car from York and
Walnut Streets to 206 Manatawny , it would take a minute or less. Id. at 21 -
22.
Lieutenant Richard also obtained video from the exterior of 206
Manatawny Court Apartments , and he gathered information about individuals
11
associated with that apartment C2. Id. at 22. He obtained a cell phone picture
of four guns that had been taken inside that apartment prior to the murder. Id.
The lieutenant watched the video from about 9:00 p .m. up until 11 :30, 12
o'clock on the night of the murder. Id. He was watching for a black van pulling
into the parking lot. Id. at 23. The van had several distinctive features, and at
11:00 p.m., this black van backs into the parking lot at Building 206. Id . at 24
- 25. The video depicts several people entering the doorway of the apartment
building, and the door opening to where C2 would be. Id. at 25 - 26. At 11: 10
p.m., the van pulls out of the parking lot. Id. at 27. At some point in his
investigatio n he became aware that Goins, co-defenda nt Brinkley, and co-
defendant Lee had been driving a black van on the night of the murder. Id. at
76. He also learned that it was Goins who had rented a black van. Id. at 75 -
76.
A search warrant was obtained for 206 Manatawny , Apartment C2,
and was executed on !\pril 3, 2019. Id. The lieutenant described the apartment
as not set up to live in. Id . He detailed what was found in relevant part, a Glock
magazine fully loaded in a plastic sandwich bag; a Colt .45 handgun with an
extended magazine that was loaded and which had been determined to be
stolen out of Philadelphi a; a CenterPoin t crossbow; a box of Remington .45
ammunitio n; a plastic bag of .380 caliber ammunitio n; and a receipt with
Jamar Baird's phone number on it. Id. at 28 - 36.
The search also uncovered drugs, and drug parapherna lia,
including, plastic vial lids commonly used for packaging illegal narcotics, box of
12
wax baggies commonly used for packaging heroin, measuring cup with white
residue, pink lids for vials, grocery bag containing two blocks of a white
substance, bags stamped with stamps depicting two guns and the word
"shooter", a bag of white powdery substance, blue baggies, purple vial lids,
digital scale, and Suboxone patches. Id. at 36 - 47.
Search warrants for several individuals ' DNA were obtained,
including Goins, co-defenda nt Lee, co-defenda nt Brinkley, Jamar Baird, and
Elijah Davis. Id. at 52. He also obtained the DNA of Makael Bevins by consent.
Id.
Officer Jason Smaron of the Philadelphi a Police Departmen t
responded to the area of 1700 block of Chancellor Street on June 9, 2020 for a
theft of a constructio n site. Id . at 164. As one of the suspects ran away, he
threw a handgun underneath a car before being apprehende d. Id. at 165 - 166.
Officer Smaron identified the firearm as a Glock .40 caliber, nine-millim eter
handgun. Id. at 167.
Taylor Richart, a forensic DNA scientist with the Commonwe alth of
Pennsylvan ia was accepted as an expert in the field of DNA profiling. Id. at 179,
182. He performed DNA analysis on the zipper pulls and snaps of the black
jacket. Id . at 188. The major component of the profile mixture matched the
DNA sample from co-defenda nt Lee. Id. at 191. As to the collar strap of the
jacket, again the major contributor to that profile mixture was co-defenda nt
Lee. Id. at 193 - 194.
13
Jordan Valenci, an employee at Enterprise Rent-A-Car identified a
rental agreement in which the rental was picked up on March 29, 2019 at
10:16 a.m., and returned April 2, 2019, at 9:46 p.m. at the Pottstown location.
Id. at 286, 288 - 289. It was a 2019 black Dodge Caravan, and was rented by
Goins. Id. at 289.
Jamar Baird re-took the stand. (N.T., Trial by Jury - Day 5 of 8,
1/ 10/22, p. 11). The Commonwealth asked again, the question of whether co-
defendant Lee was still at the first location, when Mr. Baird left. The
Commonwealth read into the record Mr. Baird's grand jury testimony in which
he answered that co-defendant Lee left the gathering before he did, and that
co-defendant Lee was going to "do something, handle something." Id. at 12.
Mr. Baird acknowledged that his nickname is "Spazz," and that he
used that name as an aspiring rapper. Id. at 13. He put out some rap videos,
and in the videos there are references to BGB. Id. Mr. Baird explained that
BGB, stands for Bud Gang Bitch, in memory of his close friend, Bud, that
passed away. Id . at 13 - 14.
On cross-examinat ion, Mr. Baird denied that co-defendant Lee is a
part of BGB. Id. at 22. In fact, Mr. Baird denied that BGB is a gang, saying it is
"nothing to be a part of." Id. at 23. He also denied that Goins was a part of
BGB. Id. at 41. Further, Mr. Baird testified that BGB was named for his friend,
Jordan Scott, nickname Bud, who was shot and killed. Id. at 55 - 56. Mr. Baird
rejected the idea that BGB was organized for the purpose of selling drugs in
Pottstown. Id. at 56. According to him, it was merely a group organized as a
14
way to remembe r a close friend that was shot and killed. Id. Finally, Mr. Baird
testified that he was walking with co-defen dant Brinkley down Walnut Street
on the way to the gathering when they saw the victim. Id. at 62. There was no
conversa tion between them. Id. at 65. As to leaving the gathering at Chestnut
and Evans, Mr. Baird remembe red that co-defen dant Lee left there, and he was
driving a van. Id. at 71 - 72.
On re-direct, Mr. Baird testified that when he left Chestnut and
Evans, he told co-defen dant Lee that he would meet him at Beech and
Manataw ny. Id. at 83. Co-defen dant Lee arrived at that location about fifteen to
twenty minutes after Mr. Baird heard the gunshots . Id. He arrived there driving
a van. Id. Mr. Baird also stated that Goins and co-Brinkl ey were with co-
defendan t Lee, and that they arrived in the van. Id. They all left Beech and
Mantawn y in the van, they picked up two more people, they went to the Gulf
gas station, and then straight down to Philadelp hia. Id. at 84 - 85.
Detective Eric Nelson of the Montgom ery County District Attorney' s
Officer - Forensics unit- is the firearm and tool marker examiner for the county
and was accepted as an expert in firearm and tool maker identifica tion. Id. at
99, 10 2 - 103. He was involved in the analysis of various ballistic items related
to the murder. Id. at 109. He first analyzed ten fired shell casings a/k/a fired
cartridge cases, which were .40 caliber, Smith and Wesson. Id. at 111. All ten
fired cartridge cases were microsco pically examined and the detective
determin ed they were all fired from the same pistol. Id. at 114 - 115. He also
received six projectile s, which are bullet specimen s, for his review. Id . at 111 .
15
Detective Nelson determined that the six projectiles were all consistent with .40
caliber ammunitio n. Four of the six were consistent with .40 caliber
ammunitio n with the same type of rifling (rifling are those lands and grooves
inside a barrel.) . Id. at 113. The other two projectiles were too mutilated or
distorted and damaged to give a type of rifling. Id.
At the time of his examinatio n, Detective Nelson did not have a
firearm to compare to it. He submitted a fired cartridge case to the Integrative
Ballistic Identificatio n System ("IBIS") 4 • Id. at 116. The detective was notified
that there was a match from a case in Philadelphi a. Id. at 117 - 118. It was a
high-confid ence hit that the shell casing matched a Glock firearm submitted to
the IBIS system in Philadelphi a. Id. at 119 - 120. The Philadelphi a Police
Departmen t had the actual semi-autom atic pistol that they test-fired and they
took one of the test fired shells and submitted that to IBIS. Id. at 120. Detective
Nelson went to the Philadelphi a Firearms Unit, met with the assigned
examiner, and examined the Glock pistol. Id. The detective test fired it himself,
and compared the test fires to the shell casings in this case. Id. They were a
match. Id . Detective Nelson determined that he Glock pistol from Philadelphi a
was in fact the pistol that fired the ten shell casings in this case. Id .
Jarid Majors, was a resident of 126 North York Street in March of
2019 . Id. at 227 . At some point on March 30, 2019, he went to a gathering a
4 IBIS is a computer-bas ed database that takes digital images of the cartridge case,
specifically the microscopic marks left on a fired cartridge case . (N.T., Trial by Jury- Day 5 of 8,
1/ 10/22, 116). This image is put into the database, and it searches for other fired cartridge
cases that have been entered into the IBIS system for a match. Id. at 116 - 117.
16
Chetnut and Evans Street around 9:00 p.m. Id. at 228. He was there for about
10 to 15 minutes. Id. He left the gathering, and when he came back home later
that night, he saw a lot of cops there. Id. Before he arrived he was aware that
someone got shot in front of his house. Id. He denied knowing the victim. Id. at
229 - 230.
Mr. Majors testified that he knew co-defendant Lee, and he knew
him as "Quan" or "Swizz." Id. Mr. Majors had told police in his statement that
he has seen co-defendant Lee at 206 Manatawny Street. Id. at 235 - 236. Mr.
Majors also knew Goins, who goes by "D," and c-defendant Brinkley who goes
by "Key'' or "Dread." Id. at 236 - 237. Mr. Majors testified that after he spoke
with police regarding the murder, he warned several of his friends that police
had gotten their numbers from his phone. Id. at 237 - 238.
Mr. Majors was questioned about BGB, which he was aware of. Id.
at 239 - 240. He was also aware that that BGB has put out rap videos, and
that he was featured in some of them. Id. at 240.
Kelise Smith was a resident of Pottstown, in March of 2019. Id. at
328. On March 30, 2019, in the afternoon, Ms. Smith was on Chestnut Street
and Evans Street. Id. at 328 - 329, 335. She was there with several of her
friends, her sister, Denasia, and her sister's friends. Id. at 330. Ms. Smith
further testified that while she was at the gathering at Chestnut and Evan
Streets, co-defendant Lee came by around 9:00 p.m., in the van. Id. at 339.
She stated that Goins and co-defendant Brinkley were at also Chestnut and
Evans Streets hanging out. Id. at 339 - 340, 34. Someone suggested going to a
17
club, and Ms . Smith and her friends went back to Denasia's house to change.
Id. at 330, 335. Ms . Smith testified that when they left Chestnut and Evans
Streets gathering to get dressed, Goins, co-defenda nts Brinkley, and co-
defendant Lee were still there . Id. at 357. Ms. Smith and Denasia were back at
Denasia's house for about ten minutes, then they got picked up by a van . Id . at
331, 335 - 336. Ms. Smith testified that co-defenda nt Lee was driving the van,
and also in the van were Goins, co-defenda nt Brinkley, Jamir Baird, and Elijah
Davis. Id. at 333, 336 - 337, 341. After they got picked up they stopped at a
gas station in Pottstown. Id. at 358.
Sometime that night, Ms. Smith found out that Keith Robinson,
who she knew as "Naz" was murdered. Id . at 342. Mr. Robinson was close with
her family, and that is how she knew him . Id. at 342 - 343. The topic came up
in the van that Naz had died. Id. at 373 - 375 .
The Commonwe alth recalled Lieutenant Todd Richard to testify
regarding video surveillanc e that was obtained from the Gulf gas station. Id . at
380. The lieutenant testified that at about 11 :27 p .m ., the video shows a black
van pulled up to the gas station, and that co-defenda nt Lee got out the van and
walked into the store. Id . at 382. The video from inside the store showed that
co-defenda nt Lee grabbed a lighter. Id. at 383. The outside video shows Goins
exit the passenger sea,t, and that he also we_nt into the store. Id.
On day six of the trial, the Commonwe alth presented the expert
testimony of Detective William Mitchell, a detective with the Montgomer y
County Detective Bureau - Homicide Unit. (N .T., Trial by Jury- Day 6 of 8,
18
1/ 11/22, p. 6 - 7). He was accepted as an expert of cell phone record analysis.
Id. at 10. The detective obtained call details for Goins, co-defen dant Brinkley,
and Eiljah Davis 5 . Id. at 10 - 11. He did not obtain co-defen dant Lee's cell
phone records because the cell phones that were recovered were activated two
weeks after the homicide occurred , and investiga tors were unable to obtain a
I
good cell number for him during the time of the homicide . Id. at 13.
First, the detective spoke about co-defen dant Brinkley' s cell phone
records, stating that on March 30, 2019, at 9:16 p.m., co-defen dant Brinkley' s
cell phone was using a cell site on the east end of Pottstown . Id. at 27. Co-
defendan t Brinkley has no other cellular activity until the following day at 1: 18.
Id. at 28. However, there were data transmis sions after that, including
iMessagi ng texts, social media accounts , Instagram accounts , e-mails. Id. at
28.
At 9:48 to 9:57 p.m., Goins' cell phone was using a cell site at
Shoemak er Road, and the sector is facing the hangout location at Chestnut
and Evans Streets. Id. at 29.
Between 10: 11 and 10:25 p.m., co-defen dant Brinkley' s cell phone,
using data transmis sions, was using a cell site that was in the east end of
town, encompa ssing the gas stations and the hangout location. Id. at 31.
Around 10:41 p.m. just prior to the murder, Goins' cell phone was using the
sector of a cell site that faces the homicide location. Id. at 32.
5 He explained that he obtained the call records of Davis because he was one of the individuals at
the hangout location at Chestnut and Evans Streets, he was in the van, and he also went to the Uncut
club in Philadelphia afterwards. (N .T., Trial by Jury- Day 6 of 8, 1/ 11/22, p. 13).
19
The detective next testified about a still image from video
surveillan ce footage in the area of the homicide showing a black minivan by the
building, with the victim's vehicle off to the side of the video still shot. Id. at 33 .
The 9-1-1 call was at 10:53 p.m. Id. at 33. A few minutes after the homicide co-
defendan t Brinkley' s cell phone was hitting the tower right by the homicide
location. Id. The detective identified a still shot image of the van arriving at 206
Manatawny Street just after the homicide occurred at 11:01 or 11 :02 p .m. Id.
From 10:57 to 11: 14 p.m ., there are several incoming calls sent to voice mail,
and at that time the cell site tower was across the river in Chester County\
and then the cell phone was using the cell site that was off Shoemak er Road,
which is .2 miles away from 206 Manataw ny Street. Id . at 34, 36. From 11: 12
to 11: 19 p.m., co-defen dant Brinkley' s cell phone was using the Shoemak er
Road tower exclusive ly. Id . at 36. That is the location where the still image
showed the van pulling in to that location. Id.
Sometim e after 11 :25 p.m., the detective testified that co-defen dant
Brinkley' s cell phone began using multiple cell towers during a data
transmis sion, and moved to the cell site by the gas station. Id. At that time, the
detective noted that in the surveillan ce video the van pulled into the gas
6 The detective testified that he often with cell phones that are down in the area of the
southern portion of Pottstown that the cell site across the river in Chester County will be used
because of its location it provides good access to the southern portion of Pottstown . (N .T., Trial
by Jury- Day 6 of 8, 1 / 11 /22, p. 34 - 35). The detective explained that whenever a cell phone
is utilizing a tower, it is not necessarily the tower that is closest, but rather the tower with the
strongest signal. Id. at 35. He further stated that in his experience it is usually the closest
tower but not always the case. Id. That is the reason that he compares other evidence in the
case when evaluating the call records. Id.
20
station. Id. Therefore , the cell phone records are consisten t with co-defen dant
Brinkley' s cell phone leaving the area of 206 Manataw ny Street and going to
the gas station where the van pulls in. Id.
As to Goins' cell phone, there were two cell sites being utilized, the
first which faces the sector at Manataw ny Street, and the second cell site, it
faced the gas station location, and there was a NELOS record for the time
7
frame when the van actually pulls into the gas station. Id. at 37. The NELOS
record encompa sses where the gas station location where they end up driving
to during that time frame. Id. Detective Mitchell opined that this is indicative of
the cell phone leaving the area of Manataw ny and going towards the area of the
gas station. Id.
The detective showed snapshot s at 11 :28 where that van pulled
into the gas station, and Goins' entering the store at the gas station at 11 :30
p.m. Id. at 38. After the van left the gas station, the cell sites for co-defen dant
Brinkley travel and go into Philadelp hia, to the area of the Uncut club. Id. The
cell phone arrived, and used towers in the area of the club at 12:42 a.m. Id.
Goins' cell site informati on during this time is consisten t with
traveling from the area of the gas station and traveling to the Uncut club, but
his cell phone arrives there a little bit later, around 1:05 a.m., rather than the
other ones which were around 12:30 a.m. Id. at 39 - 40. After 2: 14 a.m., the
7 A NELOS record is informatio n specific to AT&T, where it provides handset informatio n
in a general area, represente d by a circle around a location. The circle can be bigger or smaller
depending on AT&T's calculation of where the handset it located. (N.T., Trial by Jury- Day 6 of
8 , 1/11/22, p. 26).
21
records show that the cell phones leave the area of the Uncut club and begin to
travel north. Id. at 40. Co-defendant Brinkley's cell phone travels north, past
the vicinity of Gratz Street, where the murder weapon was eventually found. Id.
at 40 - 42. Detective Mitchell testified that this route taken by co-defendant
Brinkley's cell phone was not the most direct route back to Pottstown. Id. at 41
- 42. Goins' cell phone travels the same trajectory, leaving the club around
2:05 a.m., traveling north, and then traveling in a western and northern
direction back to Pottstown. His cell phone was accessing cell sites in
Pottstown at 3:47 a .m. Id . at 42. Co-defendant Brinkley's cell phone accessed
cell site towers in Pottstown at 3:57 a.m. Id. at 43.
Next to testify was Elijah Williams, an inmate at Bucks County
Correctional Facility. Id . at 118. He had been incarcerated in Montgomery
County Correctional Facility in the summer of 2021. Id. Around June and July
2021, he was on the K-4 unit, cell 422. Id. at 118 - 119. Although he did not
have a cellmate, he was able communicate with other prisoners directly next
door to his own cell. Id. at 119. In the summer of 2021, he spoke to a prisoner
who identified himself as Dread, later determined to be co-defendant Brinkley.
Id. at 120. Co-defendant Brinkley was in the adjacent cell to Mr. Williams'.
424 . Id . In the course of several conversations, the topic of a homicide on
March 30, 2019, in Pottstown came up. Id. at 121. Co-defendant Brinkley
asked Mr. Williams if he knew a guy named Naz and told him that Naz's real
name was Keith. Id. at 122. Mr. Williams told co-defendant Brinkley that he
was in Pottstown in August of 2020. Co-defendant Brinkley responded, "oh, the
22
guy was long gone by then," and he laughed about it. Id. Co-defenda nt Brinkley
told Mr. Williams that he was the one charged with that homicide. Id . Co-
defendant Brinkley confided in Mr. Williams, telling him specifics of the
murder. Id. at 123. Co-defenda nt Brinkley stated that he and some friends
were in a van and they drove past where the guy was and they saw him sitting
in the car. Id. They parked the van somewhere away from cameras because he
knew where in Pottstown where the cameras were. Id. He walked to the car the
guy was sitting in, and walked up alongside of the car. Id. Co-defenda nt
Brinkley said that the guy never saw it coming. Id. Co-defenda nt Brinkley
described it as, he walked up on him, pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, pop. Id. at 124.
He said he ran off and got rid of everything and wound up selling the strap8 to
his folks in Philadelphi a. Id. Co-defenda nt Brinkley believed the gun would be
used in a murder in Philadelphi a, and if so, then the person who got caught
with the gun in Philadelphi a would be thought of as Naz's killer. Id .
Mr. Williams further testified that co-defenda nt Brinkley revealed
his motive, telling him that Naz was an old guy, like 40-somethi ng, 20 years
older than him, and was still out there hustling, and that his time was up. Id.
at 126. Co-defenda nt Brinkley and his team wanted to take over his business
and the guy was in the way. Id . He wasn't from Pottstown, he was from
Philadelphi a, and that annoyed co-defenda nt Brinkley. Id. Mr. Williams
explained that by hustling, co-defenda nt Brinkley was referring to that Naz was
8 Williams testified that the term "strap" is synonymous with "gun." (N.T., Trial by Jury -
Day 6 of 8, 1/ 11/22, p. 125).
23
selling drugs. Id. at 127. Co-defendant Brinkley indicated that he was also
selling drugs and that he was competing for business. Id. Co-defendant
Brinkley had argued with Naz, and relayed that he was arrogant because he
didn't believed that guys from Pottstown are tough like in Philadelphia. Id. at
129. Co-defendant Brinkley specifically stated, he "ain't going to let old dudes
eating while he's starving." Id. at 127. Brinkley talked about the habeas corpus
hearing and about Jamar Baird. Id. Brinkley was upset that he was going to
testify against him when he was supposed to be part of his gang, BGB. Id. at
130.
Detective Heather Long was working in March of 2019 with
Pottstown Police Department as a detective. Id. at 235 - 236. On March 30,
2019, Detective Long was called to assist with the investigation, to help
conduct interviews on the night of the murder. Id. at 236. Days later she
canvassed the area and later helped with cell phones. Id. During her time in
Pottstown, she came into contact with individuals who had information about
BGB. Id. at 236 - 237. She obtained information about BGB through
numerous interviews, talking to community members, review of cell phone
downloads in other investigations, reviewing social media, Instagram,
Face book, and Snapchat. Id. at 237.
Detective Long testified that she is familiar with BGB. Id. at 279.
The detective explained that on July 6, 2017, Jordan Bud Scott was murdered
in Norristown. Id. Speaking with people in the community, reviewing some of
the videos, social media, various prior investigations, she is aware of people
24
who associate with BGB. Id. at 280. In particular, the detective described
graffiti in Pottstown as it relates to BGB at Chestnut and North Washington
Streets, where a tractor trailer had numerous spray painting tags on it, Fly
High Bud, RIP Bud, LL23, Long Live Bud Savage, Free the Gang. Id. at 281 -
282 . Detective Long knows that Jamar Baird, has a BGB tattoo on his neck. Id.
at 282. Jamir Mitchell has a BGB tattoo on the back side of his hand. Id. She
also knows that co-defenda nt Lee, co-defenda nt Brinkley, Tyshaun Harvey,
Kelvin Harris, Jarid Majors, Ryan Fields, Nahmer Baird, Makael Bevins, Ahnile
Fountain, and Elijah Davis are affiliated with BGB. Id. at 282 - 283. As to
Goins, the detective testified that he is associated with several people in BGB,
and that they went to Pottstown High School together and hung out under the
title BFL, Brother for Life. Id. at 283 - 284 .
Detective Long reviewed self-produc ed rap videos she came across
on YouTube. Id. She came across these videos in reviewing social media, and it
was brought to her attention by another officer in Pottstown, at which point
she started additional intelligence gathering on the individuals and the gang in
· general in late 2018. Id. at 284 - 285. The detective testified that the video
"Don't Understand " has references to BGB, and that individuals associated
with BGB appear in the videos. Id. at 286. She testified that it was recorded
sometime between July 2017 and May 2018. Id. at 287.
Detective Long testified that portions of the video are filmed at
Chestnut and North Washington Street in Pottstown, that area with the trailer
that had the BGB graffiti, another portion that is filmed inside 7 Beech Street,
25
the other half of the 206 Manatawny complex. Id. at 292 - 293. The tractor
trailer location is also significant because the day prior to Jordan Scott's
murder, he was involved in a shooting at that location. Id. at 293.
Detective Long testified using still photographs taken from the rap
video. Id. at 294 . The first picture depicted the start of the video with a picture
of Jordan Scott. Id . at 294 - 295. In the background is the trailer with the BGB
graffiti. Id. at 295. Co-defendant Lee and Jamir Mitchell were also depicted. Id.
The main rap artists in the video, were co-defendant Lee and Jamir Mitchell.
Id. In another still frame from the video was Steven Mitchell, who was
murdered in 2014. Id. That was also co-defendant Lee's Instagram profile
picture. Id. at 295 - 296. Another still image depicted Alexander Dot Scott,
older half-brother of Jordan Scott, and Ryan Rizz Fields. Id. at 296. The next
still image was of the participants rapping. Id. Present were co-defendant Lee,
co-defendant Brinkley, Robert McCoy, Jamir Mitchell, and Charles Harris. Id.
They were all wearing Medellin Materials clothing. Id. at 297. Another image
shows co-defendants Lee and Brinkley shaking hands. Id.
An additional video, "Savage," featured individuals that are rapping
including, co-defendant Brinkley, Jamar Baird, and Jamir Mitchell. Id. at 298 -
299. The detective identified an image of a medallion with a picture of Jordan
Scott. Id. at 300. Another image was of co-defendant Brinkley holding a
handgun. Id. at 301.
On cross-examinat ion, Goins' defense counsel questioned Detective
Long and asked her whether she was unequivocal that Goins was not a
26
member of 8GB. Id. at 302. The detective answered that she found nothing,
other than his association to Lee . Id. She also agreed that Goins was nowhere
depicted in the rap videos she testified to. Id. at 302 - 303.
On the seventh day of trial, the Commonwe alth presented the
expert testimony of Lieutenant Erick Echevarria9 • (N.T., Trial by Jury - Day 7 of
8, 1/ 12/22, p. 47). Lieutenant Echevarria worked for the Montgomer y County
Detective Bureau, currently the supervisor of the violent crime unit. Id. at 48.
The lieutenant was accepted as an expert in gang structure and organizatio n,
drug trafficking, and jargon. Id. at 54 - 55.
Lieutenant Echevarria first described what makes a group of
affiliated individuals a gang. Id. at 62 - 63. By reviewing social media, music
videos, information from various police departmen ts and correctiona l facilities,
he and his investigato rs look for common bonds. Id. at 63. He explained that in
Montgomer y County there are primarily two locations with gang activity,
Norristown and Pottstown, with Pottstown having more of a history of gang
activity. Id. at 63 - 64. In general when a gang forms, members self-profess ,
they post, and they tag up until law enforcemen t gets involved. Then the
members stop in order to distance themselves quickly from the gang. Le!:. at 64 .
The lieutenant testified that not every group of individuals that he has
investigated , including numerous organizatio ns involved in drug trafficking and
9 Defense counsel for Goins renewed his objection to Lieutenant Erick Echevarria's expert
testimony, and requested a cautionary instruction. (N.T., Trial by Jury - Day 7 of 8, 1/ 12/22,
p. 47, 55 - 59). This Court overruled the objection and denied the request for a cautionary
instruction. Id. at 59.
27
other crimes, are gangs. Id. at 64. One of the things that sets a group of people
apart from a gang, especially in Pottstown and Norristow n, is that they attach
that name to the criminal activity they're doing and expressin g that through
music videos, posting, tagging, and through word of mouth, and clothing. Id. at
65. This is done to bolster their image and spread fear. Id.
Lieutena nt Echevarr ia became familiar with gang and drug jargon
through his undercov er work, i.e., wiretaps, reviewing social media, and phone
download s. Id. He has gathered gang intelligen ce to identify gang members and
gang activity through local police departme nts, county and state level
correctio nal facilities, interview ing informan ts, newly released prison gang
members , music videos, and social media. Id. at 65 - 66.
Lieutena nt Echevarr ia explained the gang activity in Pottstown ,
both predeces sor gangs and BGB. Starting in 2015, his unit was tasked to
investiga te violence that was occurring within the Borough of Pottstown . Id.
What he learned is how gangs evolve, where members stay the same or split
up, but the name changes. Id. at 67. He explained that Pottstown gang activity
started out as Brothers for Life ("BFL"). Id. at 67. In fact, co-defen dant Lee has
a BFL tattoo. Id. Goins and Jarid Majors were members of that gang. Id. BFL
became Brothers From Another ("BFA"). Id. at 67. As his unit was investiga ting
this gang activity, people were either BFA or Straight Cash Money Gang,
("SCMA"). Id. SCMG was represent ed through T-shirts and rap videos. Id. There
was an investiga tion in these gangs and arrests were made. Thereafte r, there
was a void in regard to gang activity in Pottstown , until law enforcem ent began
28
to hear about 206 Manataw ny Street. Id. Initially, it was believed that it was
related to SCMG. Then in 2017, there was an influx in shootings in Pottstown
when Jordan Scott was murdered . Id. Lieutena nt Echevarr ia put his unit on
alert, he contacted the correctio nal facilities and other agencies that this could
be a triggering event for future gang activity. Id. at 68. After that, he explained
the moniker BGB came. Id.
Lieutena nt explained that a home-gro wn gangs or corner gangs are
informal groups of people that are from a neighbor hood. Id. They can either be
for money or for turf, and they're joined together. Id. These home-gro wn gangs
copy bigger gangs such as the Bloods, Crips, the Latin Kings and some of their
ideologie s. Id. In Montgom ery County there is limited influence from national
gangs, and much more home-gro wn street gangs. Id. The lieutenan t further
explained that what can happen with a home-gro wn gang is that the name can
change and mutate, and if they find a reason to justify a name change and to
be more aggressiv e and violent, they will do so. Id. at 68 - 69. Example s of
events that could justify a name change could be a split from the founding
member who created the name or law enforcem ent involvem ent. Id. at 69. For
instance the SCMG, which was everywhe re until there was an extensive
investiga tion, and now the lieutenan t testified that he rarely sees a mention of
that gang. Id . Another triggering event for a name change could be a death or a
murder. Id. Alexande r Scott was an active member of SCMG, who is now in
state prison for his gang activity, his younger brother was Jordan Scott. Id.
29
That is why when Jordan Scott was murdered he put the local police
departments, correctional facilities, and his unit on alert. Id.
More specifically as to BGB, Lieutenant Echevarria explained how
individuals are identified as being associated with BGB. A majority of the
people associated with BGB had BGB hashtags 10 , some sort of connection to
BGB, or they were in videos in front of graffiti. Id. at 69 - 70. Also, even just
going down a street in Pottstown, some people would yell "BGB." Id . at 70. The
lieutenant searched for the hashtag BGB which turned up a lot of profiles and
messages from the Pottstown area. Id. He further explained that individuals
who are not in the gang might use the hash tag just to instill fear, because you
are either with them or against them. Id. at 72 - 73. In his review of materials
in this case that apply to BGB, there are other references and hashtags. Id. at
73. There were references to: Michael Jordan because of Jordan Scott's name,
Long live Bud Savage, Bud Savage. Id.
In reviewing co-defendant Lee's lnstagram records, Lieutenant
Echevarria was able to determine that he was involved in drug trafficking. -Id.
For instance, co-defendant Lee's Instagram account posts stated, "the food is
in" which he interpreted to mean that he was waiting for an arrival of illegal
drugs. Id . at 75. He observed that "food" is code for heroin or fentanyl. Id.
There were also references to drug trafficking in the rap videos that were
10 It is a way to promote things on social media and the internet, legitimate and
illegitimate. (N .T., Trial by Jury - Day 6 of 8, 1/ 12/22, p. 70, 71). Lieutenant Echevarria
explained that it is the more modern equivalent of more traditional ways of promoting things
such as graffiti. Id. So one way to promote your gang and your membership is to put a hashtag
with that on social media. Id.
30
reviewed. Id. at 75 - 76. Lieutenant Echevarria was able to determine that co-
defendant Lee was in a position of prestige in BGB. Id. at 76. To hold a position
of prestige in a gang like this, the older members pass down the ideologies of
the gang, such as they do not cooperate, loyalty, gang mantras~ the way to live,
how to drug traffic and other various illegal activities the gang is involved with.
Id. at 77.
The lieutenant reviewed and testified to several of co-defenda nt
Lee's Instagram posts, interpreting jargon. Id. He interpreted this jargon to
reflect gang mentality, such as not to speak to law enforcemen t about the
illegal activities. Id. at 78 - 79. As to co-defenda nt Brinkley's lnstagram account
named Long Live Bud Savage, referring to Jordan Scott, along with his posts,
Lieutenant Echevarria determined that he is affiliated with BGB. Id. at 79, 81 .
The lieutenant interpreted many of these posts for the jury that exemplify gang
mentality and ethos, such as "loyalty over royalty," meaning that you're loyal to
the code, to the gang; "clip or get clipped," to the lieutenant meant that co-
defendant was armed; "never turn ya back on ppl that had yours 100,"
meaning that if someone was loyal to you, then you are loyal to them. Id. at 80
- 82. Another post, "Loyalty first, money second," - - N word - - "Don't fuck up
da motto 100," means loyalty to your gang, to your neighborho od, to your
group, and then to make money is the next priority; so first is loyalty and
second is to make money. Id. at 84 . Another post, "free the gang," the
lieutenant explained that this term comes up almost every time a group - - one
of the group of people are incarcerate d. Id.
31
Next, Lieutenant Echevarria discussed the significance of rap
videos. Id . at 85 . It was the lieutenant's expert opinion that BGB was not just a
music group. Id . at 86. It is significant that the individuals that are depicted in
the BGB videos are appearing in videos branded by BGB. Id. at 86 - 87. It
spreads fear, it's telling the community that this is BGB. Id. at 86. Both of the
videos talk about BGB itself. Id . at 87.
Lieutenant Echevarria decoded for the jury portions of the lyrics of
the rap video "They Don't Understand." Id. at 89 .
It's Bud Gang Bitch. You don't understand. Nah, they
don't understand. How they killed my man. That shit
wasn't in the plan . You know me, off the wake up, I'm
trying to make a band. What you need? I got grams of
that white and the tan.
Id. at 90. He explained that they don't understand the death of Bud Scott and
that the "wake-up" is when they wake up to try to make a band, a street term
for a thousand dollars. Id. at 91. "White and tan" denotes cocaine and fentanyl.
Id . He further explained that "[y]ou ain't a sucker free, homie. You took the
stand, rat" is professing they are still loyal to the code, that they're still with
the crew, with the gang. A "sucker" would be someone who is trying to be
something they are not. Id. at 91 - 92 . "You took the stand, rat," refers to
someone who cooperated with law enforcement. Id. at 92 .
And the streets reach deep - - N word - - ain't no
turnin' back, couple - - N words-· - locked down that
could turn into rants. I ain 't stressing, but he tired
and I'm wearing all black. Had to learn in reality I can't
get Bud back. Every time I see an opp, it's going to be
a blood bath. If you ain't tryin' to die, then you better
fall back. I ain't aimin' fir the chest. I aim right at your
32
head. If the cops ask me, man, I never saw that. No if
the cops ask me, man, I never say that.
Id. The significance of "[t]he streets reach deep," refers to the fact that the arm
of the streets is long and that you can be retaliated. Id. at 92 - 93. "Ain't no
turnin' back," denotes that there's no turning back from that lifestyle. Id. at 93 .
It could also mean that once you cooperate that you're not permitted back into
the group. "Couple" - - N word - - "locked down" expresses a concern that when
another individual that knows your illegal activity, is incarcerate d by law
enforcemen t, that there's the risk of cooperation and that they are concerned
about their cooperation . Id. "I ain't stressing, but he tired, I'm wearin' all
black," is that they put on the clothes to conceal their identity, dark clothes at
night. Id . "I had to learn the reality I can't get Bud back," that's he's not coming
back from the dead. Id. at 93 - 94. "[E]very time I see an opp, it's going to be a
blood bath," "[o]pp" means opposition, someone that is against the gang. Id. at
94. The lieutenant testified that it is his opinion that if they see someone on the
other side or someone they perceive as an enemy, that there will be a blood ·
bath, that there'd be some sort of violence. Id.
Upon questioning of what could cause someone to be perceived as
an enemy, the lieutenant explained that it could stem from a murder of a
member. Id. Once it starts, any little thing triggers the violence. Id. "If you ain't
tryin ' to die, then you better fall back," means don't oppose us. Id. "If you ain't
aimin' for the chest, I aim right at your head," means they are going to shoot
you in the head. Id. "If the cops ask me, man, I never saw that. Nah, the cops
33
ask me, I never saw that," warns not to cooperate with law enforcement, if you
are interviewed by police, you didn't see anything. Id.
In this gaine, you gotta cheat to make it out. Yep. I
feed 'em in the streets by servin' food out the house.
Pedro. I come with straight cash. I don't need no
handouts. Cash. I started my own label, man, Medellin
the brand now. From the streets.
Id. at 96. The lieutenant interpreted this to mean, that the "game" is life, and to
get out of whatever predicament you are in, you have to do some sort of
cheating. That cheating could be drug trafficking, it could some other crime,
but cheating as in not normal work. Id. "Feed 'em" refers to heroin and
fentanyl, and here it means illegal drugs. Id. "I come with straight cash, I don't
need no handouts," the lieutenant believed it to be a reference to Lee's prior
membership in Straight Cash Money Gang. Id. at 96 - 97. Co-defendant Lee is
also referring to his clothing label that he started, Medellin. Id. at 97.
Lieutenant Echevarria opined that investigators did see an
increase of Medellin T-shirts and wear in Pottstown. Id. Co-defendant Lee was
the owner of that T-shirt company. He further explained that Medellin in from
Columbia, one of the logos that it has is similar to the coca-cola logo, Pablo
Escobar is sometimes referred to as the goat of drug-trafficking , the greatest of
all time, and it's from Medellin, Columbia. Id. at 97 - 98. In one of the videos
there is an acted-out drug transfer. Id. at 98. There's another one of the T-
shirts with weight measurements on the back, and those measurements refer
to amounts of drugs. That's on the back of co-defendant Lee's T-shirt. Id. So in
the video all the BGB guys are wearing Medellin T-shirts, and so Medellin T-
34
shirts become associated with BGB so that they become interchangeabl e. Id.
The lieutenant testified that since this murder and ensuing investigation, he
hasn't seen Medellin clothing anymore. Id.
Next, the lieutenant testified regarding the rap video, "Savage." He
explained that "We trappin," means selling drugs. Id. at 100. "None of my" - N
word - "is lackin, we just pop out of the house, we blastin';" "[n]one of are
lackin" refers to always being armed. Id. "Glizzy on me ain't lacking." Id. at 101.
This refers to a firearm or specifically to a Glock, and the expression means
that I have a gun on me. Id. "Cops come" - - N - - "run disappear like magic,"
according to the lieutenant is a gang mantra not to cooperate with police. If the
police come, go, leave. Id. at 101 - 102 . "All night we stackin"'. "Stacking"
means stacking money. Id. at 102. "Hoodie up, clips full, man's gone, shit
tragic, fill 'em up, pull off, roll up, we laughin', VIP Little Bud." "Hoodie up"
means to conceal yourself. Id. "Clip's full," the magazine is full. "Man's gone"
could be the intended victim, or they could be referencing Jordan Scott Id. at
102 - 103. "Shit tragic" still talking about Jordan Scott. "Fill 'em up, "which
would be the intended victim to full them with bullets." Id. at 103. And "pull
off, roll up, we laughin'," after the shooting it's funny. Id.
Next, the Commonwealth asked Lieutenant Echevarria about 206
Manatawny Street, Apartment C2 location, and what significance it has to
BGB. Id. He responded that that location was previously identified as a SCMG
location, and then it became a location of interest to law enforcement prior to
the murder of Jordan Scott and after his murder. Id. The lieutenant reviewed
35
several photographs of the interior of Apartment C2, and stated that they
indicate that that location is a trap house. Id. at 104, 105 - 106. He explained
that a trap house customarily does not have anyone living there so it can't be
tied to any one person, and it's used for trafficking. It's known to customers. Id .
His opinion was based on the fact that the photographs depicted limited
furniture, and other indicators that it was used for selling drugs. Id. at 106.
The Commonwealth recalled Lieutenant Richard as its final
witness. Arrest warrants were issued on July 25, 2019. Id . at 225. He was
unable to take Goins into custody at that time, because Goins left the area. Id.
Investigators spoke with family members, and tried to get Goins to turn himself
in. Id. However, Goins did not turn himself in. Id. Eventually, Goins was
located on September 19, 2019 in Upper Pottsgrove. Id. at 225 - 226.
At the conclusion of the trial, Goins was found guilty of first-degree
murder and conspiracy. He proceeded directly to sentencing, at which time a
life term imprisonment was imposed . A timely post-sentence motion was filed,
and subsequently denied.
ISSUES
This Court directed Appellant to file a concise statement of errors
complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and on March 2, 2022,
Appellant did so and raised the following issues set forth verbatim below:
1. The Defendant submits that the trial court
made an error of law and abused its
discretion in failing to grant Defendant's
motion to sever as the Defendant was
. prejudiced by having his co-defendants tried
36
at the same time when there were several
pieces of evidence admitted in front of the
jury that would have been inadmissibl e
against the Defendant if he had a separate
trial, including but not limited to: co-
defendant's lnstagram and social media post,
co-defenda nts' sworn grand jury testimony,
co-defenda nt's confession, evidence of co-
defendants ' prior drug activities, gang
activities and rap videos. In addition, all the
specific bad acts evidence only applied to the
Defendant' s co-defenda nts and resulted in an
unfair trial, no matter how many cautionary
instruction s the court made.
2. The Court made an error of law and abuse of
discretion in allowing Lt. Erick Echeverria to
testify as a Gang expert, when there was no
testimony or evidence presented 1) that
Defendant Goins was in the gang Bud Gang
Bitch "BGB", 2) that Defendant Goins was
involved in any gang activity in the last 10 to
15 years, 3) that Defendant Goins was
t-~
t•
involved in any drug activity or had any
connection to the "trap" house at 206
')
/'i Manatawny . Furthermor e, the court made an
!¥ error of law and abuse of discretion in failing
to give a cautionary instruction as it related
to Lt. Erick Echevarria testimony, in failing to
':f~!~ advise the jury that none of the testimony of
{'
said witness could be used against Defendant
IJ!
.~,; Goins.
c'.'
')
t) 3. The Court made an error of law and abuse of
")
.1;1
discretion in allowing Lt. Eric[k] Echeverria to
''!i
`` testify as a Gang expert witness, as Lt. Eric[k]
Echevarria was not able to give any specific
information as it related to the Bud Gang
Bitch ("BGB") gang's hierarchy, organizatio n
structure, specific acts of gang or its
affiliates, other than general information
regarding gangs in general. Lt Eric[k]
37
Echeverri a['s] entire testimony was
speculati ve and conjectur e as it related to
BGB.
4. The Court made an error of law and abuse of
discretion in allowing 404(b) evidence in trial
where the Common wealth failed to provide
any actual notice of a 404(b) filing and the
404(b) evidence, including drug dealing,
possessio n of weapons and drugs, social
media posts was not related to Defendan t
Goins.
5. The Court made an error of law and abuse of
discretion in allowing the playing of Rap
Videos and publicati on of written lyrics
associate d with said videos as there very
limited probative value, if any, that was
greatly outweigh ed by their prejudici al effect
and there was no evidence presented that
Defendan t Goins was involved in any way
with said rap videos.
,~
!)
i:1
6. The Court made an error of law and abuse of
discretion in denying Defendan t's motion in
ri. limine to preclude evidence of gang affiliation .
~?I 7. The court made an error of law and abuse of
discretion in denying Defendan t's motion in
:t limine to preclude evidence of rap videos and
]i.,
.
,· lyrics.
fli''
;~!
,,· 8. Defendan t submits the Court made an error
~.· of law and abuse of discretion in giving the
;,)
() consciou sness of guilt/ flight instructio n
``
"\ based upon the testimony elicited at trial.
ri};
Defendan t submits that there was no
evidence of flight.
9. The jury's verdict was against the weight of
the evidence because the weight of the
evidence demonstr ated a reasonab le doubt as
38
to whether the Defendant had committed the
crimes charged.
10. The Trial Court committed an error of law in
denying Defendant' s Post-Senten ce Motion
for judgment of acquittal based upon the fact
that evidence introduced at trial was not
legally sufficient to support the verdict
because the evidence failed to establish each
material element of the crimes charged and
the commission thereof by the Defendant
beyond a reasonable doubt; including the
charge of Conspiracy and Murder in the
First Degree.
DISCUSSIO N
I. Motion to Sever
First on appeal, Goins contends that his motion to sever should
have been granted because he was prejudiced when the following pieces of
evidence were admitted in his co-defenda nt trial, when such evidence would
not have been admissible against him in a separate trial: (1) co-defenda nt's
Instagram and social media post, (2) co-defenda nts' sworn grand jury
testimony, (3) co-defenda nt's confession, (4) evidence of co-defenda nts' prior
drug activities, (5) gang activities and (6) rap videos.
On June 23, 2021 a Pre-Trial Motion Hearing was held in which
defense counsel argued as he does on appeal that evidence that the
Commonwe alth sought to introduce would be inadmissibl e against Goins in a
separate trial. (N.T., Pre-Trial Motions, 6/23/21, p. 115 - 116). Specifically ,
defense counsel asserted that Goins is not in any of the rap videos and he did
not testify in front of the grand jury. Id. at 115. Defense counsel further argued
39
that it would be impossible for the jury to parse out the evidence, and that it
would confuse the jury as it relates to Goins' involvement in the murder or
conspiracy. Id. at 116.
The Commonwealth responded that the victim's murder was a
single event, where all of the co-defendants are alleged to have participated in
that single act. Id. at 118. According to the Commonwealth a majority of the
evidence and witness testimony are applicable against all defendants. Id.
Specifically, there is a lot of evidence that connects Goins to the conspiracy,
and to the murder; such as testimony from multiple witnesses that puts Goins
leaving the same location on Chestnut Street together just prior to the
shooting, traveling in a black minivan together, the minivan was rented by
Goins the day prior to the shooting; the black van is seen on surveillance twice
in the area where the victim was shot and killed; and that just prior to the
murder, Goins was identified by a witness as being in close proximity to the
place the victim was shot. Id. at 118 - 119. Additionally, the Commonwealth
pointed to the photo array from which Goins was identified, there is video
surveillance at a gas station, a short time after the murder, of Goins getting out
of the van in which co-defendant Lee is the driver. Id. at 119. Further, cell
phone evidence shows Goins traveled to the area of the Uncut night club with
his co-defendants. Id. at 119 - 120.
The Commonwealth argued that these co-defendants were
associated, and that it would be arguing the inference that Goins was in the
black van prior to the murder, he was in the area of the murder on foot as
40
identified by a witness, he was dressed in similar clothing as on the video and
is of similar size and stature as the person in the surveillance video . The
Commonwealth concluded that there was a lot of evidence connecting Goins to
the conspiracy, and that a lot of the evidence overlaps. Id. at 120. The motion
to sever was taken under advisement, and no ruling was made at that time .
On November 29, 2021, defense counsel renewed his motion to
sever at another Pre-trial Motions Hearing. (N.T., Pre-trial Motions, 11/29/21,
p. 35 - 36). In significant part he added that there was new evidence regarding
Elijah Williams, turned over by the Commonwealth , that he is a jailhouse
informant and will testify to a confession that co-defendant Brinkley gave. Id.
at 36. The Commonwealth responded as to the witness Elijah Williams, the
jury would be instructed to consider his testimony only as to co-defendant
Brinkley, and that if there are specific references to the other co-defendants,
the witness would be instructed not to provide those specific names, rather
they would be replaced with expressions like "with his boys" , "with his crew'',
"with others ." Id. at 20 - 21 .
At the conclusion of that Hearing, this Court denied the severance
motion. Id. at 60.
The decision whether to sever trials of codefendants is within the
sound discretion of the trial court, and we will not disturb this decision absent
a manifest abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Wharton, 607 A.2d 710, 717
(Pa. 1992); see Pa.R.Crim.P. 582(A)(2) and 583 . In cases where co-defendants
are charged with conspiracy, severance is disfavored because
41
[i]t would impair both the efficiency and the fairness of
the criminal justice system to require ... that
prosecutors bring separate proceedings , presenting the
same evidence again and again, requiring victims and
witnesses to repeat the inconvenien ce (and sometimes
trauma) of testifying, and randomly favoring the last
tried defendants who have the advantage of knowing
the prosecution 's case beforehand . Joint trials
generally serve the interests of justice by avoiding
inconsisten t verdicts and enabling more accurate
assessmen t of relative culpability.
Commonwe alth v. Travers, 768 A.2d 845, 847 (Pa. 2001). However, our
Pennsylvan ia Supreme Court has also recognized that there are potential
difficulties arising from joint trials. A common problem arises in situations
where evidence is admissible against one co-defenda nt but inadmissibl e
against another. As a general matter, an instruction to the jury that it is to
consider that evidence only with respect to the defendant against whom it is
offered is sufficient to remove any potential prejudice:
Ordinarily, a witness whose testimony is introduced at
a joint trial is not considered to be a witness "against"
a defendant if the jury is instructed to consider that
testimony only against a co-defenda nt. This accords
with the almost invariable assumption of the law that
jurors follow their instruction s ....
Travers, supra.
In this case, severance was unwarrante d because Goins and his
co-defenda nts were charged with conspiracy and the vast majority of the
evidence presented at trial was equally admissible against all of the co-
42
defendants. Out of the Commonwealth 's twenty-eight witnesses, all but two 11
had testimony relevant to Goin's involvement in the murder. Therefore at a
separate trial, the Commonwealth would be required to recall twenty-six of
these witnesses. And although portions of those twenty-five witnesses'
testimony might not have been relevant to Goins, such as that of Detective
Long and Lieutenant Echevarria regarding gang related evidence, i.e., the rap
videos, rap lyrics, social media accounts, and the introduction of co-
defendants' Brinkley and Lee grand jury testimony introduced through the
testimony of Lieutenant Richard, (N.T., Trial by Jury- Day 7 of 8, 1/ 12/22 pp.
192,212), they would have had to be presented at a separate trial for Goins
because they still had testimony directly relevant to Goins.
The main evidence that Goins took issue with is the gang related
evidence; however, upon extensive cross-examinat ion of Detective Long and
Lieutenant Echevarria, Goins' defense counsel clearly brought out to the jury
that he was not a member with BGB and that the gang-related evidence did not
apply to him. Therefore, the jury was fully apprised that this evidence did not
relate to Goins.
The charged crimes against all of the co-defendants arose from the
same incident, much of the evidence presented at the eight-day trial related to
Goins and his two co-defendants, and with effective cross-examinat ion
11 For instance the testimony of Elijah Williams, the jail house informant, did not relate to
Goins since Mr. Williams testified to the conversations he had with Brinkley at Montgomery
County Correctional Facility. (N.T., Trial by Jury- Day 6 of 8, 1/ 11/22, pp. Id. at 118 - 130).
Further, the testimony of Joseph Interrante, the Major at the Montgomery County Correctional
Facility, was not relevant to Goins, as he testified to the fact co-defendant Brinkley's cell was
next to Mr. Williams. Id. at 194 - 200.
43
regarding gang affiliated evidence, the jury was aware that this evidence did not
apply to Goins and could have easily been separate out by them. Accordingly,
the motion to sever was properly denied.
II. Gang Related Evidence
Five of Goins' ten issues on appeal, namely issues number two,
three, five, six, and seven as set forth above, involve alleged errors regarding
gang related evidence. In addressing these issues, it is vital to understand that
the Commonwealth 's theory of this case was that the co-defendants conspired
to murder the victim, who was a rival drug dealer to the 8GB gang. As evidence
in support of this theory, the Commonwealth sought to introduce evidence that
the co-defendants Brinkley and Lee were members of a home grown Pottstown
gang, BGB, through witness testimony, rap videos and lyrics, social media
posts, and through drug expert testimony of Lieutenant Erick Echevarria. The
Commonwealt h offered Lieutenant Echevarria's testimony to decode the
various drug jargon contained in the rap videos and lyrics, and would testify as
to how gangs operate, and gang related ethos of loyalty and respect. This gang
related evidence was relevant to show the relationship among the parties,
which goes to conspiracy. And although Goins was not a member of the BGB
gang, Lieutenant Echevarria's testimony would show that he was affiliated with
BGB members.
In addition, gang related evidence was relevant to show the motive
to kill the victim, namely that he was a rival drug dealer. To this end,
44
Lieutenant Echevarria would provide expert testimony as to gang ethos of
loyalty and the desire to have control of the streets.
At two Pre-Trial Motions Hearings on June 23, 2021 and November
29, 2021, this Court heard argument on several motions in limine regarding all
of the gang related evidence in this case, including the expert testimony of
Lieutenant Echevarria, the introductio n of the rap videos and lyrics, social
media accounts, and the 206 Manatawny Street, Apartment C2 location. These
motions in limine were denied after extensive argument and considerati on by
this Court.
At the first Pre-Trial Motion Hearing on June 23, 2021, the
Commonwe alth stated that Lieutenant Echevarria is being offered for his
background information on 8GB throughout his time as a county detective as
well as an expert in gangs generally. (N.T., Pre-Trial Motion, 6/23/21, p. 12).
The Commonwe alth represented that Lieutenant Echevarria would be able to
provide information about gangs generally as well as knowledge specific to
8GB. Id. at 18. The Commonwe alth suggested that the jury would be aided by
his testimony regard the background and history of BGB, how groups like that
are formed, how they rely on each other, how they function, how they are
structured, use a common home base at 206 Manatawny Street, Apartment C-
2, and how these groups value and depend on the concept of loyalty and
respect. Id. at 17. The Commonwe alth asserted that this evidence was relevant
to show an association which goes to the existence of a conspiracy. Id. at 14 -
15. Additionally , the Commonwe alth argued that expert testimony was critical
45
to provide understa nding as to motive and without this testimony the motive
would not be clear. Id. at 15, 33. Under the Common wealth's theory, BGB gang
members want the victim gone, they wanted a strong hold in the Pottstown
area in terms of street credibilit y as well as the drug and gun trade. Id. at 33.
All this informati on would come in through the expert testimony , and that it is
up to the jury to give weight to this testimony or not.
In response , Brinkley' s defense counsel in part argued that BGB
gang evidence is irrelevan t. Id . at 34. He noted that the discovery that defense
counsel have received was devoid of the critical connectio n between BG B's
alleged drug dealing, the victim's drug dealing, and his drug dealing being the
reason that BGB wanted to murder Robinson . Id. at 36. The matter was taken
under adviseme nt.
Further argumen t was conducte d at a Pre-Trial Motions Hearing
on Novembe r 29, 2021. At that time the Common wealth argued that the expert
testimony will tie all the circumst antial pieces of evidence together to show that
even the slightest show of disrespec t perceived or real could cause gang
members to express that loyalty to one another, which is what was a motive for
the murder. (N.T., Pre-Trial Motions, 11/29/21 , p. 8). Witnesse s would
establish the victim was a drug dealer, that everyone knew he was a drug
dealer, and that these co-defen dants knew he was and wanted to take him out.
Id. at 7. Through the testimony of Elijah Williams, there would be significan t
evidence regarding the motive for the murder, i.e., that these co-defen dants
were frustrated that individua ls are coming from Philadelp hia to Pottstow n to
46
sell drugs, they didn't get the respect in Pottstown they deserved, and that is
why they wanted to kill the victim; and the testimony of Lieutenant Echevarria
who will review BGB affiliation, rap videos and lyrics, social media posts, drug
jargon would put the whole picture together. Id. at 7-- 8. According to the
Commonwealth , every piece of the puzzle would come together through this
expert testimony. Id. at 8. He would be called to testify of how a gang operates
and how these co-defendants' mentality operated as part of a gang and to
contribute to the motive in this case. Id. at 51.
At the hearing, defense counsel for co-defendant Brinkley observed
that Lieutenant Echevarria's eleven page expert report spends four pages
reviewing his qualifications, two pages talking about the permutations of
different gangs that ultimately led to the formation of BGB, three pages talks
about the rap videos and the lyrics from the rap songs, one page talked about
an unrelated investigation into 206 Manatawny Street, and finally one page
talked about a straw purchase, subject to a separate motion in limine. Id. at
23. Defense counsel argued that what he did not see anywhere in those 11
pages was one single mention that Lieutenant Echevarria had actual
knowledge of a conflict between BGB and the victim. Id. at 23 - 24. He further
argued that the evidence regarding rap videos and the rap lyrics falls under the
same argument. Id. at 27. The Court deferred ruling for further review. Id. at
60.
After considerable deliberation, this Court issued orders denying
the co-defendants' motions in limine, and granting the admission of evidence
47
on December 20, 2021. The denial of a motion in limine, granting the
admission of evidence is reviewed by our appellate courts for an abuse of
discretion. Commonwe alth v. Mangel, 181 A.3d 1154, 1158 (Pa. Super. 2018).
It is well settled that the "[a]dmissio n of evidence is within the
sound discretion of the trial court and will be reversed only upon a showing
that the trial court clearly abused its discretion." Commonwe alth v. Tyson, 119
A.3d 353, 357 (Pa.Super. 2015) (en bane) (internal citation and quotation
marks omitted); see also Commonwe alth v. Hoover, 107 A.3d 723, 729 (Pa.
2014) (noting that an appellate court applies an evidentiary abuse of discretion
standard when reviewing the denial of a motion in limine). "Accordingl y, a
ruling admitting evidence will not be disturbed on appeal unless that ruling
reflects manifest unreasonab leness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or
such lack of support to be clearly erroneous." Commonwe alth v. Huggins, 68
A.3d 962, 966 (Pa.Super. 2013) (internal citations and quotation marks
omitted).
Relevance is the threshold for admissibili ty of evidence.
Pennsylvan ia Rule of Evidence 401 provides that evidence is relevant if it
logically tends to establish a material fact in the case, tends to make a fact at
issue more or less probable or supports a reasonable inference or presumptio n
regarding a material fact. Pa.RE. 401. All relevant evidence is admissible,
except as otherwise provided by law. Evidence that is not relevant is not
admissible. Pa.R.E. 402. The court may exclude relevant evidence if its
probative value is outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following:
48
unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay,
wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.' Pa.RE. 403.
Rule 404(b) prohibits evidence of a defendant's prior bad acts "to
prove a person's character" or demonstrate "that on a particular occasion the
person acted in accordance with the character." Pa.RE. 404(b)(l). However,
prior bad acts evidence "may be admissible for another purpose, such as
proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity,
absence of mistake, or lack of accident." Pa.RE. 404(b)(2). "In a criminal case,
this evidence is admissible only if the probative value of the evidence outweighs
its potential for unfair prejudice." Id. "Unfair prejudice means a tendency to
suggest decision on an improper basis or to divert the jury's attentfon away
from its duty of weighing the evidence impartially."
A. Gang Expert Testimony by Lieutenant Erick Echeverria as to
Goins and No Cautionary Instruction
In Goins' issue number two, Goins contends that this Court
abused its discretion in permitting Lieutenant Echeverria to testify as a gang
expert, when there was no evidence that Goins was in the gang BGB, that he
was involved in any gang activity, that he was involved in any drug activity or
had any connection to the "trap" house at 206 Manatawny. Goins further
alleges that this Court erred in failing to give a cautionary instruction as it
related to Lieutenant Echeverria's testimony, advising the jury that none of his
testimony could be used against him.
49
In this issue, Goins is seemingly re-litigating his motion to sever.
His current appellate argument focuses solely on Lieutenant Echevarria' s
expert opinion as it related to him, i.e., that the lieutenant's opinion should
have been excluded because there was no evidence that he was a part of BGB
and that his testimony was irrelevant to him. This the same reasoning that
Goins asserted in his motion to sever, that he should have not been tried at a
co-defenda nt trial because there was admissible evidence as to co-defenda nts
Brinley and Lee, but not to him. This current argument is just another
variation of his sever argument.
However, addressing more specifically the issue of Lieutenant
Echevarria 's testimony, it was crucial to both the existence of the alleged
conspiracy and to the motive. As a drug expert he testified about gangs in
general and specifically about BGB. He opined on the values that are important
to gangs such as loyalty, respect, and instilling fear. As to BGB, he explained
how this Pottstown gang arose out of predecesso r Pottstown gangs, its various
members, and decoded gang and drug jargon in the BGB videos and lyrics
exemplifyin g the gang ethos. All of his testimony went to association of the co-
defendants , whether BGB members as in the case of co-defenda nts Brinkley
and Lee or simply affiliated with BGB members, as in the case of Goins. As to
Goins, the lieutenant explained that he was part of a predecesso r gang, BFL,
along with co-defenda nt Lee, and that BFL later mutated to become BGB.
Accordingly , the motion in limine requesting exclusion of this expert testimony
was properly denied.
50
Although defense counsel did request a cautionary instruction as it
related to the expert opinion and Goins, it was properly denied. Prior to
Lieutenant Echevarria testifying, defense counsel made his request for a
cautionary instruction, arguing that there was nothing in Lieutenant
Echevarria's report linking Goins to being a member of BGB, involved in any
gang, in any rap videos, drug activity, or linked to 206 Manatawny Street. (N.T.,
Trial by Jury- Day 7 of 8, 1 / 12/22, pp. 55 - 56). The Commonwealth
responded that the export report does reference that BGB is a home-grown
gang and is a development from prior gangs. Id . at 56. It also sets forth that
Goins was a member of a predecessor gang, BFL, along with Mr. Majors and
co-defendant Lee. Id. The Commonwealth argued that although Goins doesn't
self-identify with BGB, he is a close trusted associate of co-defendant Lee's
because of their prior gang association. Id. at 57, 58. The request for a
cautionary instruction was denied, and at that time this Court stated that
defense counsel's argument that Goins is not related to BGB is for cross-
examination and dosing argument. Id. at 60.
The denial of a cautionary instruction _was proper. Defense counsel
wanted a cautionary instruction that Lieutenant Echevarria's expert testimony
should not be considered against Goins. However, while it is true that
Lieutenant Echevarria did not testify that Goins was a member of BGB, he did
testify that Goins was a member of a predecessor gang and through that he
was affiliated with co-defendant Lee . More specifically he stated that starting in
2015, his unit was tasked to investigate violence that was occurring within the
51
Borough of Pottstown. Id . at 66. During that time, his unit identified two
warring gang factions. Id. Within six months, they identified 22 various
shootings. Id . at 66 - 67. What he learned during this time about gangs in
Pottstown is how gangs evolve, where members stay the same or split up, but
the name changes. Id. at 67. He explained that it started out as Brothers for
Life, and co-defenda nt Lee has that tattoo. Id. Goins and Jarid Majors were
members of that gang. Id. Therefore, because the expert testimony was relevant
in part to Goins he was not entitled to a cautionary instruction that this
testimony cannot be considered against him.
Additionally , defense counsel extensively cross-exam ined this
witness and clearly brought out the fact that Goins was not a member of BGB.
Id. at 128 - 147. First, Lieutenant Echevarria acknowledg ed that Detective
Long specifically said that Goins was not a member of BGB. Id. at 132 .
Detective Echevarria also stated that Goins is not a member of 8GB. Id. 132 -
133, 141, 144. The detective testified that he did not find any videos of Goins
proclaiming to be a member of BGB and that there were no hash tag references
by Goins to BGB. Id. at 133. Goins was in none of the rap videos identified by
law enforcemen t as relating to BGB, Goins was not mentioned in any of the
videos, and there was no link between Goins and these videos . Id. at 138 - 139.
Defense counsel also questioned the lieutenant about the lack of affiliation
between Goins and 206 Mantawny Street. Id. at 140, 142 - 143.
52
B. Gang Expert Testimony by Lieutenant Erick Echeverria Not
Specific to BGB
In Goins' third enumerated issues as set forth above, he contends
that this Court erred in permitting Lieutenant Echevarria to testify as a gang
expert witness because he was not able to give any ``ecific information about
BGB as to the gang's hierarchy, organization structure, specific acts of the
gang or its affiliates, other than general information regarding gangs in general.
Appellant argues that this rendered _his testimony speculative and conjecture
as it related to BGB.
On December 20, 2021, this Court entered an order finding
Lieutenant Echevarria's expert testimony to be admissible, and denying
defense counsel's motion in limine to preclude his testimony.
Now on appeal, the issue that is asserted claims that his testimony
should have been rendered inadmissible because it only provided general
information about gangs and none specific to BGB; therefore, it was speculative
in nature. However, this theory as a basis to exclude the expert testimony is
novel. It was never raised before this appeal by Goins' defense counsel or any of
the co-defendants' counsel, which he could have adopted.
All defense counsel were presented with his expert report by the
time of the second Pre-Trial Motions Hearing and understood the substance of
his proffered testimony; however this issue was never raised. This Court
respectfully requests that this issue be deemed waived. "A theory of error
different from that presented to the trial jurist is waived on appeal, even if both
53
theories support the same basic allegation of error which gives rise to the claim
for relief." Commonwe alth v. Gordon, 528 A.2d 631,638 (Pa.Super. 1987)
Even if this issue was properly preserved it lacks merit. The
lieutenant's trial testimony is replete with specific information as to BGB. He
described the predecesso r gangs, how this specific gang formed and why, and
the ethos of BGB members as expressed through BGB related rap videos and
lyrics.
C. Rap Videos and Rap Lyrics
In issue number five, Goins alleges that this Court made an error
of law and abused its discretion in allowing the playing of rap videos and
publication of written lyrics associated with said videos as there very limited
probative value, if any, that was greatly outweighed by their prejudicial effect
and there was no evidence presented that Goins was involved in any way with
said rap videos. In Goins' seventh enumerated issue, he claims that this Court
abused its discretion in denying his motion in limine to preclude evidence of
rap videos and lyrics. These issues will be addressed simultaneo usly.
The Commonwe alth sought to introduce the rap videos and lyrics
in order to establish conspiracy and motive. The Commonwe alth argued that
the rap videos demonstrat e gang activity and association . This goes to the
conspiracy, the conspiracy to commit murder, which all of the co-defenda nts
were charged with. (N.T., Pre-Trial Motions, 6/23/21, p. 12 - 13). The
Commonwe alth argued that there is only one shooter, and the remaining co-
defendants assisted in committing the murder. Id. at 45. It would be their
54
affiliation through the gang that is relevant to show this conspiracy. Id. More
specifically , the Commonwe alth argued that the rap videos are associated with
the BGB, with numerous BGB tags and graffiti, and are filmed in locations
significant to BGB, including 206 Mantawny Street. Id. at 16. There are
references to always carrying firearms and there are specific references to not
cooperating with police. Id. at 56. The Commonwe alth told this Court that
other members of BGB would be called to testify, Jamar Baird and Jarid
Majors. Id. at 30. There would be a drug expert to testify that you are only
going to have close associates appearing in these sorts of videos. Id. at 43.
In addition, this gang association explains the motive of the
murder. Id. at 13, 14 - 15. The Commonwe alth noted that there is a significant
emphasis in the rap videos on the importance of drug dealing and making
money, with many drug dealing references. Id. at 43. This goes to motive. Id.
The Commonwe alth stated that there would be testimony from a jargon expert
about those drug dealing references. Id.
Defense counsel argued that Goins was in no way associated with
the rap videos. Id. at 25, 51. Additionally , he argued that the nexus between
the rap videos and the murder is lacking. Id. at 53. The matter was taken
under advisement .
Further argument on the matter was held on November 29, 2021.
At that time, the Commonwe alth asserted that had witness testimony
establishin g that the victim was a drug dealer. That it was well-known all
across Pottstown, that the co-defenda nts knew this, and that they wanted to
55
take him out. (N.T., Pre-Trial Motions, 11/29/21, p . 7). The Commonwe alth
stated that it will establish this circumstan tially through multiple ways. Id. The
Commonwe alth pointed to testimony of Elijah Williams who will provide
significant information regarding the motive to the murder, that these co-
defendants were frustrated, that individuals from Philadelphi a were coming to
Pottstown to sell drugs, and that they didn't get the respect in Pottstown that
they deserved, which goes to the motive to murder Keith Robinson. Id. at 7 - 8.
The Commonwe alth reiterated that Lieutenant Echevarria will testify as a gang
expert, whose testimony will tie all these circumstan tial pieces of evidence
together. Id. at 8. The Commonwe alth argued that this is a conspiracy case,
and it would establish that these co-defenda nts worked together to eliminate
the victim, and that Lieutenant Echevarria' s testimony ties all of the evidence
together. Id. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court did not rule on the
issue so as to take further time to review. Id. at 60.
On December 20, 2021, an order was issued denying the motion in
limine to exclude the rap videos. An additional order was issued permitting the
Ji,.
I'•lt
t'') audio and video evidence of the rap videos to be admissible at trial.
On appeal, Appellant contends that the denial of the motion in
limine was in error and an abuse of discretion. For the reasons that follow this
Court respectfully argues that its ruling should be upheld.
The rap videos and lyrics were properly admitted to show that
there was an association among the co-defenda nts, i.e., that they belonged to a
gang, BGB, and that as a gang there were a set of ethos, as testified to by gang
56
expert Lieutenant Echevarria, which in gave rise to their collective motive, their
conspiratorial motive, to murder the victim. In other words, the rap videos and
lyrics was evidence of gang activity, and such gang activity was relevant to
show a conspiracy existed. It is well-establishe d that evidence ofa defendant's
gang activity is admissible to establish a conspiracy. See Commonwealth v.
Gwaltney, 442 A.2d 236, 241 (Pa. 1982) ("evidence of the gang activity is highly
probative of whether a conspiracy existed"); see also. Commonwealth v. Flamer,
53 A.3d 82, 89 (Pa.Super. 2012) (rap lyrics should have been admitted where
lyrics about people "keeping their mouths shut," sending friends to kill for
him, and "popping shells" in people that "run their mouth" had a tendency to
show a conspiratorial agreement).
In addition, the gang activity evidence was relevant to establish a
motive for the murder. This evidence when pieced together with other
testimony and evidence, including the drug expert testimony, presented by the
Commonwealt h established that co-defendants viewed the victim as a rival
drug dealer. See, Commonwealth v. Ramos, 532 A.2d 22, 23-24 (Pa. Super.
1987) (properly admitting evidence of gang activity and drug dealing to explain
motive and relationship). Evidence of gang affiliation and gang ethos was
relevant to show that these co-defendants had the motive, intent, and plan to
conspire in the murder. Therefore, this gang-related evidence in the form of rap
videos and lyrics was properly admitted at trial. And although Goins was not a
member of BGB, he was closely associated with members of that gang, and had
been a gang member of a predecessor gang, BFL.
57
As to whether the playing of the videos for the jury and the
publication of the lyrics was proper, this issue is waived . Presumably the
inclusion of the rap videos and rap lyrics would include the playing of videos
for the jury as well as the publication of the lyrics. None of the defense counsel
raised this as an issue at any time prior to trial or at trial. The argument that
defense counsel focused on was the general argument that this evidence
should b~ excluded. It was never argued that if this evidence is deemed
admissible then the videos should not be played and that the lyrics not be
transcribed . Accordingly , this argument is waived on appeal.
D. Motion in Limine as to Gang Affiliation
Appellant's sixth issue on appeal asserts that this Court abused its
discretion in denying his motion in limine to preclude evidence of gang
affiliation . Gang affiliation evidence was comprised of several component s. It
was introduced through expert witness testimony. The expert testimony
analyzed 8GB rap videos and rap lyrics, and 8GB related social media
accounts . As explained earlier in this opinion, gang affiliation was properly
admitted and relevant to show association among the co-defenda nts to
establish conspiracy and motive for the murder.
III. Notice of 404(b) Evidence
Next on appeal, Goins claims that this Court abused its discretion in
permitting Rule 404 (b) evidence at trial where the Commonwea lth failed to provide
any actual notice of a 404(b) filing and the 404(b) evidence, including drug dealing,
possession of weapons and drugs, social media posts that were not related to Goins.
58
At the June 23, 2021, Pre-Trial Motions Hearing, the Commonwealth
addressed the Court stating that the co-defendants had filed motions in limine to
exclude forms of evidence related to gang affiliation, specifically to a local Pottstown
gang referred to as BGB. (N. T., Pre-Trial Motions, 6 / 23 / 21, 10). The Commonwealth
contemplated admitting witness testimony to establish the relationships among the
co-defendants; the co-defendants' association with BGB, including rap videos and
lyrics referencing BGB; social media posts related to BGB, and expert testimony of
Lieutenant Echevarria related to gang jargon. Id. The Commonwealth· detailed that it
intended to call Detective Heather Long of the Montgomery County Detective Bureau
and Lieutenant Erick Echevarria, who would testify as to social media posts with
"#BGB", references to Jordan Scott who is the murdered individual who inspired the
creation of BGB, rap videos and rap lyrics referencing BGB. Id. at 11 - 13. The
Commonwealth would further present the testimony of Jamar Baird and Jarid Majors,
both who testified at the grand jury or gave statements, that were members of BGB.
Id. at 30.
Defense counsel for co-defendant Brinkley asserted on behalf of all of the
co-defendants that they received no 404(b) motions from the Commonwealth in this
case. Id. at 19. He stated that if the Commonwealth wished to introduce evidence of
gang affiliation, activity, or membership among any of the co-defendants, that those
are prior bad acts, which requires a Rule 404(b) motion. Id. Defense counsel continued
that all of the co-defendants' motions in limine to preclude such evidence was
anticipatory in nature. Id. Defense counsel acknowledged that the Commonwealth
raised the relevant issues of expert testimony of Lieutenant Erick Echevarria, 12 social
12 The notes of testimony refer to Lieutenant Erick Echevarria as Detective Eric
Echevarria. This Court will refer to this witness with his proper title and correct spelling of his
name.
59
media posts, rap videos and lyrics, and BGB membership . Id. at 19 - 21. However, it
was asserted that based upon the offer of proof the Commonwealth provided earlier at
the hearing, counsel are forced to speculate as to what particular evidence that intend
to introduce. Id. at 22. Goins' defense counsel joined in on the argument. Id. at 24. He
claimed that they are at a disadvantage because without the normal offer of proof in
writing, they cannot be put on notice to adequately argue against excluding the
evidence under Rule 404(b). Id. at 24 - 25. Goins' defense counsel further brought to
the Court's attention that the rap videos and social media posts with gang affiliations
were in no way connected to Goins. Id. at 25. He said that that is related to his motion
to sever. Id.
The Commonwealth responded that under Rule 404(b) (3), the notice that
is required in a criminal case is that the prosecutor must provide reasonable notice in
advance of trial, or during trial if the Court excuses pretrial notice on good cause
shown, of the general nature of any type of evidence the prosecutor intends to
introduce at trial. Id. at 30. The Commonwealth' s position was that this requirement
was met when in its responses to the co-defendants' motions in limine it stated its
intention to admit evidence related to gang activity. Therein the Commonwealth stated
the types of evidence it was seeking to admit, the basis for that evidence under Rule
404(b), and the case law in support of its admission. Id.
Under the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule
404(b)(3) 13 , in effect at the time this matter was adjudicated, "... the prosecutor
13 Pa.R.Crim.P. 404 was amended on December 2, 2021, and became effective as of April
1, 2022. Rule 404(b)(3) was amended to read as follows:
(3) Notice in a Criminal Case. In a criminal case the prosecutor
must provide reasonable written notice in advance of trial so that
the defendant has a fair opportunity to meet it, or during trial if
60
must provide reasonable notice in advance of trial, or during trial if the court
excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown, of the general nature of any such
evidence the prosecutor intends to introduce at trial." See, Rule 404(b)(3). "The
purpose of this rule is to prevent unfair surprise, _and to give the defendant
reasonable time to prepare an objection to, or ready a rebuttal for, such
evidence. However, there was then no requirement that the "notice" must be
formally given or be in writing in order for the evidence to be admissible."
Commonwealth v. Lynch, 57 A.3d 120, 125-26 (Pa.Super. 2012) (internal
citations and quotation marks omitted) . Our courts have held that sufficient
notice exists where the prior bad acts evidence was discussed during a
preliminary hearing or where the defense received the evidence in discovery.
Commonwealth v. Stallworth, 781 A.2d 110, 118 n.2 (Pa. 2001);
Commonwealth v. Mawhinney, 915 A.2d 107, 110 (Pa.Super. 2006) .
In this case, although the Commonwealth did not file a written
motion, the Commonwealth as noted by defense counsel presented extensive
discovery (N .T., Pre-Trial Motions, 6/23/21, p . 11) and the Commonwealth filed
responses to co-defendants' anticipatory motions in limine which was based
upon the discovery that was provided. In those responses the Commonwealth
detailed the gang related evidence it intended to introduce. Further, at the Pre-
the court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown, of the
specific nature, permitted use, and reasoning for the use of any
such evidence the prosecutor intends to introduce at trial.
See, Pa.R.E. 404. The version relied on in this appeal, which expired on March 31, 2022, is the
version that was in effect at the time that the pre-trial motions were adjudicated and at the
time of trial.
61
Trial Motions Hearing on June 23, 2021, the Commonwe alth further fleshed
out what evidence they were seeking to be admitted. This evidence was
discussed extensively at this hearing and it was further discussed at another
Pre-Trial Motions hearing on November 29, 2021. There can be no claim of
surprise or that there was not a sufficient amount of time to prepare an
objection to this evidence. This claim must fail.
IV. Jury Instruction s - Consciousn ess of Guilt/Fligh t
In issue number eight as set forth about, Goins claims that it was
an error of this Court and an abuse of discretion in charging the jury with the
consciousn ess of guilt/ flight jury instruction.
After the jury was excused at the end of day seven of the trial, this
Court notified counsel of its intention of providing the jury with the
consciousn ess of guilt/flight jury instruction. (N.T., Trial by Jury- Day 7 of 8,
1/ 11/22, p. 361). Goins' defense counsel objected, arguing that there was no
evidence of fleeing. Id. at 362. The objection was overruled, and this Court
stated that there was testimony that investigato rs went to Goins' mother's
house repeatedly, asking to try to have Goins turn himself in; therefore it could
be argued that Goins was avoiding the police. Id. at 362 - 363. This Court did
provide the standard jury instruction on consciousn ess of guilt/flight. (N.T.,
Trial by Jury - Day 8 of 8, 1/ 12/22, p. 227).
In examining an appellant's challenge to a jury instructjon on flight
as consciousn ess of guilt, our Supreme Court has stated:
62
A jury instructio n is proper if supporte d by the
evidence of record. [... W)hen a person commits a
crime, knows that he is wanted therefor, and flees or
conceals himself, such conduct is evidence of
consciou sness of guilt, and may form the basis [of a
convictio n] in connectio n with other proof from which
guilt may be inferred.
Common wealth v. Clark, 961 A.2d 80, 92 (Pa. 2008) (internal citations
omitted). An instructio n on flight/co nsciousn ess of guilt is appropria te where
the evidence existed that defendan t committe d a crime, knew he was wanted,
and fled or concealed himself. Common wealth v. Lukowich , 875 A.2d 1169,
1173 (Pa.Super . 2005) (citations omitted).
In this case, Detective Richard testified that the arrest warrant for
Goins was issued on July 25, 2019, and that he was unable to take him into
custody at that time because Goins left the area. Investiga tors spoke with
family members , and tried to get Goins to turn himself in, which he did not do.
Eventual ly Goins was located on Septemb er 19, 2019 in Upper Pottsgrov e.
From this evidence it can be inferred that Goins knew he was wanted in
connectio n with this murder, but concealed his location until the time law
enforcem ent was able to locate him.
V. Weight of the Evidence
In Goins' issue number nine, he asserts that "[t)he jury's verdict
was against the weight of the evidence because the weight of the evidence
demonstr ated a reasonab le doubt as to whether the Defendan t had committe d
the crimes charged." See, Concise Statemen t of Matters (sic) Complain ed of on
Appeal, filed 3/2/22.
63
In this case, Goins was convicted of first-degree murder and
criminal conspiracy. Goins' l 925(b) statement, merely alleges that these
convictions were against the weight of the evidence. Given the lack of any
specificity as to which conviction and why that conviction was against the
weight of the evidence, this Court finds a waiver of this issue . To preserve a
challenge to either the sufficiency or weight of the evidence on appeal, an
appellant's Rule l 925(b) concise statement must state with specificity the
elements or verdicts for which the appellant alleges that the evidence was
insufficient or against the weight of the evidence. See Commonwealth v.
Freeman, 128 A.3d 1231, 1248-49 (Pa.Super. 2015) (finding waiver of
appellant's sufficiency and weight challenges where the Pa.R.A.P. 1925
statement was too vague to permit the court to identify (1) which crimes, or the
elements of any crimes, that the Commonwealth allegedly failed to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt; or (2) which verdicts were contrary to the weight of
the evidence, and the specific reasons why the verdicts were contrary to the
weight of the evidence); see also, Commonwealth v. Reeves, 907 A.2d 1, 2
(Pa.Super. 2006) ("If a Rule 1925(b) statement is too vague, the trial judge may
find waiver and disregard any argument.") citing, inter alia, Commonwealth v.
Lemon, 804 A.2d 34, 37 (Pa.Super. 2002) (statements in Rule 1925(b) that "the
verdict of the jury was against the evidence," "the verdict of the jury was
against the weight of the evidence," and "the verdict was against the law'' were
too vague to permit adequate review); and Commonwealth v. Seibert, 799 A.2d
54, 62 (Pa.Super. 2002) (Rule l 925(b) statement that "the verdict of the jury
64
was against the weight of the credible evidence as to all of the charges" was too
vague to permit appellate review).
Further, looking at Goins' Post-Senten ce Motion is of no help,
where it is also vaguely alleged that "Defendant submits the jury's verdict was
against the weight of the evidence. Specifically , the Defendant contends the
weight of the evidence presented demonstrat ed a reasonable doubt to whether
the Defendant had committed the cringes charged" See, Post-Senten ce Motion,
filed on 1/21/22, i!i!14, 15. Accordingly , without more specificity this Court is
unable to address this issue on appeal, and is therefore waived.
IX. Judgment of Acquittal
Finally, Goins contends that this "Court committed an error of law
in denying Defendant' s Post-Senten ce Motion for judgment of acquittal based
upon the fact that evidence introduced at trial was not legally sufficient to
support the verdict because the evidence failed to establish each material
element of the crimes charged and the commission thereof by the Defendant
beyond a reasonable doubt; including the charge of Conspiracy and Murder in
the First Degree."
A motion for judgment of acquittal challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence to sustain a conviction on a particular charge, and is granted only in
cases in which the Commonwe alth has failed to carry its burden regarding that
charge." Commonwe alth v. Emanuel, 86 A.3d 892, 894 (Pa. Super. 2014) .
Again, this Court is constrained to find that Goins has waived his sufficiency
claim. "In order to preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on
65
appeal, an appellant's Rule 1925(b) statement must state with specificity the
element or elements upon which the appellant alleges that the evidence was
insufficient ." Commonwe alth v. Stiles, 143 A.3d 9p8, 982 (Pa.Super. 2016
(quoting Commonwe alth v. Garland, 63 A.3d 339, 344 (Pa.Super. 2013)). "Such
specificity is of particular importance in cases where, as here, [Appellant] was
convicted of multiple crimes each of which contains numerous elements that
the Commonwe alth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwe alth v.
Ellison, 213 A.3d 312, 321 (Pa.Super. 2019). "Therefore, when an appellant's
[Rule] l 925(b) statement fails to specify the element or elements upon which
the evidence was insufficient[ ,] ... the sufficiency issue is waived on appeal." Id.Here, Goins has failed to either articulate the specific elements of
any crime which he deems the evidence presented at trial failed to sufficiently
establish. In addition, Appellant's Post-Senten ce Motion is similarly devoid of
any specificity. See, Concise Statement of Matters (sic) Complained of on
Appeal, filed 1/21/22, ,i,i 16, 17. Therefore, this issue is waived.
66
CONCLUSI ON
Based upon the foregoing analysis, Goins' judgment of sentence
entered on January 13, 2022, should be affirmed.
BY THE COURT:
WILLIAM R. CARPENTER J.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
PENNSYLVANIA
38TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Copies sent on May 13, 2022
By Electronic Mail to:
Robert Falin, Esquire, Deputy District Attorney, Chief of Appellate Division;
RFalin@mon tcopa.org
Gregory P. DiPippo, Esquire; gdipippo@p mrbm.com
Denise S. Vicario, Esquire, Executive Director; opinions@),m ontgomeryba r.org
Paul DAnnunzio; PDAnnunzio @alm.com
Copies sent on May 13, 2022
By First Class Mail to:
Derrick Goins #QN7308
SCI Camp Hill
P.O. Box 8837
2500 Lisburn Road
Camp Hill, PA 17001
/7. . ,A., [' n.
(,!4._J.,~{'.l!O~f«. tv.Mj-h,1 .Q..
Judicial Assistant
67