The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the order granting the defendant’s post-sentence request for a new trial after his non-jury conviction of sexual crimes against a minor.  The crux of this appeal concerned the admission of evidence that the defendant searched for legal counsel on the internet before he was arrested or implicated as a suspect in the underlying crime, and the Commonwealth used this evidence to show his consciousness of guilt. The Superior Court held that the “court did not err or abuse its discretion when it found (1) the defendant’s constitutional due process rights were violated, (2) the prejudicial value of the evidence outweighed its probative value, and (3) admission of evidence was not harmless error.”