United States of America v. Carl Rose

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with drug and firearm offenses.



In 2011, a jury sitting in the Eastern District of

Pennsylvania convicted Carl Rose of federal drug and firearm

offenses. The District Court sentenced Rose to 120 months'

imprisonment, followed by a five-year term of supervised

release. But about two years after Rose's term of supervision

began in 2019, the District Court determined that Rose violated

the terms of his supervision. That led the Court to sentence

Rose to an additional 12 months' imprisonment, with a three-

year term of supervised release to commence thereafter. Rose

began that term of supervision in October 2021.



Again, trouble soon followed. The Probation Office

filed a report in February 2022 alleging that Rose violated the

terms of his supervision by submitting a urine specimen that

tested positive for marijuana, and then, by absconding from

supervision. The District Court ordered the issuance of a

warrant for Rose's arrest so that he could be brought before the

Court for a revocation hearing. But before that hearing could

occur, the Probation Office filed an amended report.



The amended report provided that Rose was arrested in

Philadelphia and charged with, inter alia, aggravated assault

and prohibited possession of a firearm. According to the report,

the victim of the attack told officers that Rose entered her

bedroom, brandished a firearm and told her she owed him

money. The report further alleged he stabbed her multiple

times before fleeing.



The state charges relating to Rose's April arrest

proceeded in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. But

when the victim of the alleged stabbing failed to appear, the

Commonwealth dismissed the aggravated assault charge. Rose

pled guilty to prohibited possession of a firearm in February

2024.



Rose appeared before the District Court for his

supervised release revocation hearing on May 22, 2024. He did

not dispute the violation related to his possession of a firearm,

so the hearing focused on the alleged aggravated assault.



The Government began by offering Timothy Flanagan,

an agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and

Explosives, as its first witness. Agent Flanagan testified that

despite the issuance of a subpoena for the victim and his

repeated attempts to locate her, he was unsuccessful. He also

testified that the victim was a fugitive wanted on unrelated

charges lodged in Pennsylvania state court. Defense counsel

objected, arguing that the Government failed to establish good

cause for the victim's nonappearance, and that admitting any

of the victim's out-of-court statements would violate Rose's

constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him. The

District Court stated that it was satisfied the Government had

acted in good faith in trying to locate the victim, but it reserved

ruling on the confrontation issue, citing a need to hear more

evidence.



The Government then offered Philadelphia Police

Officer Domenic Etri, who testified that he responded to the

reported stabbing. The Government moved to introduce the

body camera footage of an officer who accompanied Officer

Etri to the scene of the attack that day.



The video showed—and Officer Etri confirmed—that

the victim identified Rose as her attacker. The victim also told

officers that Rose frequents the "municipal building” in

downtown Philadelphia, App. 58, and described him as light-

kinned, heavy set, and wearing a black jacket, Officer Etri

further testified that he accompanied the victim to a nearby

hospital. He explained that officers brought Rose to the

hospital after apprehending him. The Government introduced

Officer Etri's body camera footage, which showed that the

victim, while at the hospital, recognized Rose as her assailant

and told officers that Rose brandished a small black gun during

the attack.



Next, the Government called Philadelphia Police

Officer Michael Mullin to the stand. He testified that on the

day of the alleged assault, he received a radio call that an

aggravated assault had just occurred and that the suspect, Rose,

frequents the municipal building. So Officer Mullin and his

partner proceeded on foot. Officer Mullin testified that when

they arrived at the plaza of the municipal building, they found

a man matching the description provided in the radio call. They

identified him as Rose. When Officer Mullin and his partner

searched Rose, they found a firearm and a bloody knife. Officer

Mullin could not confirm, however, whether law enforcement

ever tested the blood on the knife to see if it matched the

victim's.

Supervised release revoked.



Affirmed