J-A25012- 14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION
– SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : v. : : IBRAHIM MUHAMMED, : : Appellee : No. 2579 EDA 2013

Appeal from the Order August 16, 2013, Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Criminal Division at No(s): CP- 51

- CR -0004101-2012 CP

- 51

- CR -0004103-2012 and CP- 51

- CR -0004105-2012
BEFORE: DONOHUE, WECHT and PLATT*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY DONOHUE, J.: FILED OCTOBER 03, 2014
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania appeals from the Au gust 16, 2013
order entered by the Philadelphia County Court of C ommon Pleas granting,
in part, the pretrial motion filed by Ibrahim Muham med (“Muhammed”) to
permit the testimony of Richard Leo, Ph.D., J.D. (“Dr. Leo”) as an expert in

the area of false confessions. 1 While this appeal was pending, the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided the case of Commonwealth v. Alicia , 92 A.3d 753 (Pa. 2014). The Alicia case involved the same proffered
expert, Dr. Leo, and the entry of an order by the t rial court that is identical
to the order it entered in the case at bar, wherein it recognized Dr. Leo as an
expert in the field of false confessions and stated:

1 In its notice of appeal, the Commonwealth certified t hat the suppression court’s order terminated or substantially handicapped th e prosecution. See Pa.R.A.P. 311(d).J-A25012- 14

- 2 - 1. Dr. Leo may testify, based on his knowledge, his own research and the research of others with which he is familiar, about the general concept of false confessions.

2. Dr. Leo may further testify, again based on his knowledge, his own research and the research of others with which he is familiar, about:
(a). Police training methods in the field of interrogations;
(b). Police interrogation methods; and
(c). Why certain interrogation techniques, if used in a particular case, may increase the risk of false confession.

3. Dr. Leo may not testify as to case specific allegations about the interrogation in the instant case, and may not

offer testimony based o n: (a). Statements provided to him by the defendant either verbally or in writing;
(b). Documents or reports prepared by counsel or other experts, to the extent such documents or reports purport to be based on discussions with or information about the defendant, Jose Alicea [sic];
(c). What he believes may be factors specific to this interrogation that may have given rise to a false confession; and
(d). Whether or not he believes the confession in this case was voluntary or coerced, or true or false.

Id. at 758-59 (quoting Trial Court Order, 8/12/08) (em phasis in the
original); Trial Court Order, 8/16/13 (emphasis in th e original). OurJ-A25012- 14

- 3 -

Supreme Court in Alicia held that the trial court erred by admitting Dr. Leo ’s
testimony, as “expert testimony such a s the proposed testimony of Dr. Leo
constitutes an impermissible invasion of the jury’s role a s the exclusive
arbiter of credibility.” Id. at 764.
We are bound by our Supreme Court’s decision in Alicia

. 2 See

Commonwealth v. Demmitt , 45 A.3d 429, 432 (Pa. Super. 2012), appeal
denied, 67 A.3d 793 (Pa. 2013). We therefore reverse the tr ial court’s
decision permitting Dr. Leo to testify as an expert in the area of false
confessions and remand the case for further proceedings.
Order reversed. Case remanded for further proceeding s. Jurisdiction
relinquished.
Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 10/3/2014

2 We note that following publication of the decision in Alicia , counsel for Muhammed filed with this Court notice that he conceded the appeal, stating, “Counsel cannot argue that the trial court did not err [] in the face of Alicia , and acknowledges that the present state of the law requ ires a reversal of the trial court’s order admitting the evidence.” Appellee’ s Application to Concede Appeal, 8/29/14, at ¶ 4.