Client was charged with rape after female victim reported to police that she did not consent to the sexual intercourse. Defense counsel impeached the alleged victims account of the incident on cross-examination, thereby undermining her credibility. After only a half hour of deliberations, the jury acquitted Client of rape. Jury verdict: NOT GUILTY. Blair County.
Client was charged with Rape of a Child and related offenses when his step-granddaughter accused him of inappropriate sexual contact. After a lengthy criminal investigation which involved DNA analysis, CYS records, polygraphs, and competency hearings, the case went to trial. The defense challenged every aspect of the Commonwealths case and called over 25 character witness during the defenses case-in-chief. After a three day trial the jury was unable to reach a verdict. A mistrial was declared.
Client was charged with Rape of a Child, Aggravated Indecent Assault of a Child, and other related sexual offenses after a ten-year-old female alleged that Client had forcibly raped her on three occasions. The Commonwealth had the victim submit to numerous interviews with law enforcement investigators, Children and Youth Services, and various psychologists and psychiatrists. At trial, the Commonwealth called three expert witnesses, the victim, the victims parents, and the Pennsylvania State Trooper who investigated the incident. Defense counsel successfully impeached all Commonwealth witnesses and presented evidence in support of the Defendants good character and work history. JURY TRIAL: NOT GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS. Centre County.
Client was charged with sexual offenses and Indecent Assault after female victim reported to the police that she did not consent to the sexual intercourse. After cross-examination regarding the details of the encounter, the credibility of the victim was impeached. The mother of the alleged victim also testified and her testimony was similarly rejected by the court. BENCH TRIAL VERDICT: NOT GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS. Centre County.
Client was charged with Rape of a Child less than 13 years old and other related sexual offenses for allegedly performing consensual sexual acts with a 12-year-old female. If convicted, Client faced a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years incarceration in state prison. Client denied that any sexual activity had occurred. At trial, defense counsel impeached the testimony of the alleged victim by cross-examining victim regarding inconsistent testimony given at a prior hearing. Defense counsel argued that the jury must acquit Client based upon the contradictory testimony of the alleged victim and the lack of physical evidence to corroborate her testimony. JURY VERDICT: NOT GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS. Mifflin County.
Client was charged with sexual offenses, corruption of minors, and endangering welfare of children, for events that allegedly occurred between Client and his thirteen year old nephew. The case proceeded to trial, and the jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY on all counts; Centre County.
Client with Rape of his two step-children 4 years after the incident was alleged to have occurred. After a thorough investigation the defense was able to establish an alibi for the date of the alleged offenses. We were able to show that the accused purchased several 4th of July Picnic supplies from a local supermarket and was not therefore present during the date and time alleged. Client had an excellent work history and had been a good father to his biological children who testified at trial. Together with several character witnesses and the defendant's own testimony the jury acquitted the defendant of all charges. NOT GUILTY ALL COUNTS POTTER COUNTY
Clients were charged with Simple Assault after allegedly engaging in an altercation with bouncers attempting to remove them from a bar in downtown State College. At trial, defense counsel cross-examined the bouncers who removed clients from the bar and demonstrated that the video from the incident directly contradicted the story told by the bouncers. Likewise, defense counsel exposed on cross-examination the inconsistencies between the bar managers testimony and the actual events as recorded by the video. JURY VERDICT: NOT GUILTY. Centre County.
Client was charged with several counts of assault and theft relating to an encounter with his ex-girlfriend who was in the process of moving out of their apartment. The victim fabricated a story to gain some advantage in domestic proceedings. After interviewing witnesses and preparing for preliminary hearings in two different counties all charges against the Client were withdrawn. The victim failed to show up on 3 separate occasions and subject herself to cross-examination which would have led to charges being filed against her for false reports. When a victim is aware that the defendant has hired an experienced criminal defense attorney who may expose false reports, the likelihood of esolution increases greatly.
Client was charged with Simple Assault and Harassment after allegedly striking a male in the face during an altercation outside of a fraternity near Penn State University. The victim suffered a broken nose and other serious injuries. Despite an on-scene identification immediately after the incident, defense counsel successfully cross-examined the victim at the preliminary hearing regarding the method and details of identification. CHARGES DISMISSED. Centre County.
Client was present during the execution of a search warrant on his roommates bedroom. His roommate was being investigated for drug trafficking and during the execution of the warrant all roommates were detained, questioned, and searched. Police recovered a small amount of marijuana from clients desk. There was no basis to search defendants room or to detain him for any purpose other than officer safety. Based on the questionable nature of the entry into clients bedroom and the search appertaining thereto the Commonwealth was agreeable to dismissing the Possession of a Small Amount of Marijuana and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia charge in exchange for a plea of guilty to a summary charge of disorderly conduct. The client was ordered to pay fines and costs in the amount of $353.
Client was stopped on Interstate 80 for speeding. The state trooper approached the vehicle to issue a traffic citation. As is common on Interstate 80, the initial traffic stop turned into a drug investigation after the trooper claimed the client was acting suspicious and that he detected an odor of Marijuana. After a coercive encounter where the client was made to exit his vehicle and answer questions without being Mirandized, the trooper discovered marijuana and paraphernalia in the clients car. The trooper cited client for speeding on the scene and later filed drug charges. The client plead guilty to speeding and paid the fine at the Magisterial District Justices office. When client received the drug charges he hired counsel. When charging any defendant the Commonwealth must include and join all charges in one complaint consistent with what is known as the Compulsory Joinder Rule PaRCrimPro 505(b). Since the client pled guilty to speeding the Commonwealth could not proceed on the drug charges. All drug charges were withdrawn.
Client was charged with Possession of a Small Amount of Marijuana and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia after the police conducted a warrantless search of Clients apartment and found a marijuana pipe in the kitchen. A pretrial motion was filed on behalf of Client seeking suppression of the evidence seized during the warrantless search. The trial court held that Client had consented to the search and denied suppression. After being convicted at a non-jury trial, an appeal was filed with the Superior Court. The Superior Court held that the trial court had erred in denying the suppression motion and thereby REVERSED the order of the trial court.
Client was growing marijuana plants in basement when police entered his residence with permission seeking to execute an arrest warrant for an individual who did not reside there. Client permitted a limited search of the house for the suspect but denied permission for law enforcement to access his basement. Sheriffs went into the basement despite protests from client at which time they discovered an extensive grow operation. All the plants and grow equipment were seized. Arguing the limitations of an arrest warrant and an illegal and unauthorized search of the clients residence, counsel was able to persuade law enforcement not to file charges thereby avoiding a costly defense and a likely prison term. NO CHARGES FILED.
Client was charged with Possession of a Small Amount of Marijuana and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia after police searched Clients apartment having previously detected an odor of marijuana emanating from the residence. After the initial warrantless search, the police formed probable cause and secured a search warrant at which time contraband was located. Defense counsel argued that the warrantless entry was unlawful and in violation of the Clients constitutional rights. Evidence SUPPRESSED.
Client was charged with Possession of Small Amount of Marijuana after police observed Clients friend smoking marijuana and patdown search of Client led to the discovery of marijuana. Defense counsel argued to district attorney that the search violated Clients constitutional rights. Plea agreement was reached with the district attorney, and Client pleaded guilty to summary offense of Disorderly Conduct, charge of Possession of Small Amount of Marijuana was WITHDRAWN. Centre County.
Client was charged with Possession of Paraphernalia after police officers responded to Clients apartment for a noise complaint and detected an odor of marijuana. Officers entered the apartment and subjected Client to patdown search for weapons. During patdown, officers discovered paraphernalia. Defense counsel argued that the patdown search violated Clients constitutional rights. CHARGE WITHDRAWN. Centre County.
Client was charged with Possession of Small Amount of Marijuana after Client disregarded police order to emerge from under tree and fled the scene. Client was taken into custody at which time a search of the Clients person led to the discovery of marijuana. Defense counsel filed a pre-trial motion to suppress all physical evidence obtained as a result of the search arguing that police patdown violated the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. A plea agreement was reached with district attorney, whereby the Client pleaded guilty to two summary offenses. The misdemeanor Possession of Small Amount of Marijuana charge was WITHDRAWN. Centre County.
Client was charged with Possession of a Small Amount of Marijuana after his vehicle was stopped on Interstate 80 because of an allegation that the vehicles windows were tinted. The Pennsylvania State Trooper detained the client at the roadside and began to interrogate the Client by repeatedly asking questions regarding his travel arrangements and ultimately obtained Clients permission to search vehicle. At the time and date set for the preliminary hearing, defense counsel was prepared to argue that the initial traffic stop was pretextual and violated the Clients constitutional rights and that the encounter with the Pennsylvania State Trooper violated the standards governing traffic stops as explained by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in Commonwealth v. Strickland. CHARGES WITHDRAWN: Centre County.
Client was charged with Possession of Paraphernalia after police saw a marijuana smoking device in Clients bedroom window. Client consented to police entering his apartment, but police entered his room without a warrant or consent to seize the device. Defense counsel argued with the district attorney that the evidence should be suppressed based upon warrantless search. Client pleaded guilty to summary offense of Disorderly Conduct, Possession of Paraphernalia charge was NOLLE PROSSED: Centre County.
Client was charged with Delivery of Marijuana, Dealing Proceeds of Unlawful Activity, and DUI after police initiated a traffic stop of Defendants vehicle. Defendant was ordered to exit his vehicle. A subsequent search of the Clients vehicle resulted in the discovery of approximately $30,000.00 in cash. When Client was taken into custody, he gave a detailed statement to the police. Defense counsel filed a pretrial motion seeking to suppress all physical evidence arguing inter alia that the police lacked probable cause to initiate a traffic stop and that the subsequent interrogation of the Client and search of his vehicle violated his constitutional rights. Charges were NOLLE PROSSED: Centre County.
Client was charged with Possession of a Small Amount of Marijuana and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia when members of the Altoona Police department executed a search warrant and discovered 346 live marijuana plants between 8 to 15 on the recently renovated third floor of property he owned. Grow lights, packaging material, brass knuckles and marijuana pipes containing residue were also found inside the home. The windows were covered with black garbage bags. The water bills and electrical bills showing increase utility usage were sent directly to and paid immediately by client. CHARGES WITHDRAWN; Blair County.
Client was charged with two counts each of Possession of a Small Amount of Marijuana and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, and criminal use of a communication facility. Under the direction and control of the Region IV Drug Task Force, a criminal informant purchased 2 ounce of marijuana or two separate occasions from Client. After impeaching the credibility of the informant, the jury found the Client NOT GUILTY on all counts; Centre County.
Client was charged with Possession of a Small Amount of Marijuana and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. The Pennsylvania State Police located an abandoned vehicle on SR322 with its lights on and a door open. Police returned to the scene and found Client asleep in the drivers seat. Client was bleeding, and pants appeared dirty and wet. Client was placed in rear of police cruiser until while awaiting arrival of ambulance. A Trooper questioned Client for roughly 25 minutes until the ambulance appeared. A search of the vehicle produced the following: 380 pills, one bundle of suspected marijuana, and over $31,000. Clients statements were taken in violation of Miranda and then included in the Affidavit of Probable Cause to obtain a search warrant for the vehicle. The Court held that absent Clients statements, the Officers lacked probable cause to search the vehicle. The money seized by the Officers was returned to Client. EVIDENCE SUPPRESSED; Centre County.
Client was under surveillance relative to a cocaine distribution investigation and was taken into custody after an investigative stop of the vehicle he was driving resulted in the discovery of 2 ounces of cocaine in the rear passenger area. Felony charges including Possession With Intent to Deliver (PWID) were filed, bail was set at $500,000 straight, and the client was incarcerated. At the preliminary hearing the Commonwealth failed to establish the identity of the defendant as being the person who was in constructive possession of the cocaine, and upon motion by defense counsel, the charges were dismissed, and the defendant was DISCHARGED. When charges are dismissed at a preliminary hearing the Commonwealth reserves the right to re-file.
Client was charged with Conspiracy, Delivery, and related charges that he was part of a $1,000,000.00 cocaine distribution organization involving 13 co-defendants. The trial was scheduled to begin on Operation Drive Thru after a three year investigation utilizing two investigative Grand Juries by the Pennsylvania Attorney Generals Office. The trial was scheduled to last seven days. On the first day of trial, counsel filed a motion to prevent certain witnesses from testifying after the Commonwealth failed to turn over Grand Jury transcripts in a timely manner. The trial court agreed with defense counsel and ordered that approximately 34 people were prevented from testifying on behalf of the Commonwealth. The Attorney Generals Office filed an interlocutory appeal, which is currently being considered by the Superior Court. If the Superior Court fails to overturn the trial courts decision, the Commonwealths ability to bring this case to trial is substantially impaired.
Client was charged with Possession With Intent to Deliver approximately 1.5 kilograms of cocaine. Law enforcement had executed a search warrant on Clients apartment locating a large amount of cocaine, money, scales, and other indications of drug trafficking. If convicted, Client faced a mandatory minimum sentence of 4 years in a state prison and a fine of $25,000.00. Defense counsel filed a pretrial motion to suppress all physical evidence obtained alleging that the search warrant was defective. At the time and place set for the suppression hearing, efense counsel agreed to 5 years of probation on the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) program. After successful completion of the program, the Client will have all records of the arrest expunged. York County.
Client was indicted by a Federal Grand Jury with conspiring to commit and possession with the intent to distribute and distribution of more than fifty (50) grams of crack, more than five (5) kilograms of cocaine, more than one hundred (100) kilograms of marijuana, and heroin, all in violation of 21 U.S.C. sect; 841. U.S. Marshals arrested Client by entering the home of a third party, and during execution of the arrest warrant, U.S. Marshals seized a travel bag located near Client. Client made inculpatory statements to the U.S. Marshals regarding his ownership of the bag. A subsequent search of the bag produced a stolen firearm, ammunition, miscellaneous drug paraphernalia, and a pocket digital scale. A Motion to Suppress the bag and its contents as well as the statements were filed, arguing in part that Clients statements were the product of a custodial interrogation and therefore in violation of Clients constitutional rights as enunciated in Miranda. MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS GRANTED. Middle District of Pennsylvania, Federal Court.
PSU fraternity charged criminally with providing alcohol to freshman and violating provision of the Liquor Control Law when underage drinker, who got caught urinating in public while drunk, agreed to cooperate against fraternity in exchange for having his charges withdrawn. The reputation and integrity of the fraternity were at stake. At a jury trial on March 1, counsel cross examined the cooperating witness and investigating officer and called 8 witnesses on clients behalf. NOT GUILTY ALL COUNTS.
Counsel had a jury trial the following day involving a college student who drove from his University during State Pattys Day in February 2011. He was found intoxicated and unconscious behind the wheel of his vehicle with the engine running, music playing, and the heater on 4 blocks away from downtown. Client failed field sobriety tests and refused to provide a blood sample. At the scene he stated to the police he was looking for friends. After theme-based cross examination of a Good Samaritan and two Police officers, the jury did not conclude that client moved his car and that he was not therefore in actual physical control. NOT GUILTY ALL COUNTS.
Courthouse records do not reflect whether any other criminal defense attorney has received NOT GUILTY VERDICTS at consecutive jury trials on consecutive days. That we accomplished these great results is a reflection of my firms total commitment to providing the best in trial advocacy and the support staff at Masorti Law Group (formerly, Masorti Donaldson, P.C.).
Client was charged with Furnishing Alcohol to Minors, Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, and Underage Consumption/Possession of Alcohol after police made warrantless entry into Clients residence and conducted search. Defense counsel filed pre-trial motion arguing that the warrantless entry violated Clients constitutional rights and therefore any evidence must be suppressed as fruits of the poisonous tree. Charges were NOLLE PROSSED by the district attorney. Centre County.
Client was charged with Underage Consumption/Possession of Alcohol after being arrested inside Beaver Stadium at a Penn State football game. At hearing, defense counsel argued that any detention and subsequent arrest of client violated Clients constitutional rights. Police sought to justify detention and/or arrest by introducing statements of officer who was not present, but judge sustained defense counsels objection to said testimony based upon hearsay grounds. NOT GUILTY. Centre County.
Clients were charged with Underage Consumption/Possession of Alcohol after police made warrantless entry into residence where Clients were staying. Defense counsel argued that the warrantless entry violated clients constitutional rights and therefore any evidence must be suppressed as fruits of the poisonous tree. NOT GUILTY. Centre County.
Client was charged with Underage Consumption/Possession of Alcohol after police observed an individual of youthful appearance drinking alcohol in Clients car. Police approached Client;s car and ordered Client and three passengers to produce identification. At hearing, defense counsel argued that police did not have reasonable suspicion to detain Client; therefore any evidence of Clients intoxication was the product of an unconstitutional detention. NOT GUILTY. Centre County.
Client was charged with Underage Consumption/Possession of Alcohol after admitting to police that she had consumed beer. At hearing, defense counsel argued that admission to having consumed beer was not sufficient evidence to prove that beverage consumed was malt beverage containing 0.50% or more of alcohol as required by statute. NOT GUILTY. Centre County.
Client was charged with Furnishing Alcohol to Minors, Unlawful Act Relative to Liquor, Underage Drinking, and Disorderly Conduct after police responded to noise violation at Clients apartment, police made warrantless entry into Clients apartment and discovered numerous minors had consumed alcohol. Defense counsel argued that the warrantless entry violated Clients constitutional rights. Charges of Furnishing Alcohol to Minors and Unlawful Acts Relative to Liquor were WITHDRAWN. Centre County.
Clients were charged with Underage Possession of Alcohol after police observed Clients sitting around coffee table upon which were open cans of beer. At the hearing, defense counsel argued that no testimony was presented that the cans actually contained any beer and that insufficient evidence was presented that Client had consumed alcohol. NOT GUILTY. Centre County.
Client was charged with Furnishing Alcohol to Minors and Corruption of Minors after Client was seen with his underage girlfriend at a restaurant. Witnesses allegedly saw an alcoholic beverage in the girlfriends hand. Clients tab showed purchase of two such drinks. At the preliminary hearing, witnesses admitted that they never saw Client provide alcohol to the minor. CHARGES DISMISSED. Centre County.
Client was charged with Furnishing Alcohol to Minors. Client hosted a keg party at his apartment and invited persons over the age of 21. Minors were present at the party. Officers cited one minor as he left the party for underage drinking. The minor admitted to being uninvited and unannounced at the party. After the preliminary hearing, defense counsel filed a petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and successfully argued that client had not knowingly and intentionally furnished alcohol to a minor. CHARGES DISMISSED. Centre County.
Client was charged with Furnishing Alcohol to Minors after Client hosted a keg party. Officers arrived at Clients apartment complex, and observed a group of people that they knew were under the age of 21. The minors informed officers that they had attended Clients party. One minor stated that no one at the party requested to see his photo identification or denied him admittance. The minor allegedly poured himself three or four cups of beer. At the preliminary hearing, defense argued Client did not knowingly and intentionally furnish liquor to a minor. CHARGES DISMISSED. Centre County.
Client was charged with 2 counts of Vehicular Homicide, 4 counts of Reckless Endangering, Driving at Safe Speed, Careless Driving, and Overtaking Vehicle on Right after colliding with the rear of a 1992 Plymouth Voyager killing the driver and 4 year old girl and seriously injuring the remaining passengers. Jury Verdict: NOT GUILTY.
Client was charged with three counts of Attempted Homicide (Felony 1), six counts of Aggravated Assault (Felony 1 2), three counts of Terroristic Threats (Misdemeanor 1), nine counts of Simple Assault (Misdemeanor 2) and three counts of Recklessly Endangering (Misdemeanor 2), relating to his involvement in an altercation in downtown Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania, at 3:30 a.m., wherein he brandished a 9 millimeter pistol after an argument and discharged the weapon. After a thorough investigation, a Preliminary Hearing was held and three counts of Simple Assault were dismissed. Pre-Trial Motions were filed and led to the dismissal of two counts of Attempted Homicide and two counts of Aggravated Assault. The remaining counts proceeded to a jury trial. JURY VERDICT: NOT GUILTY on Attempted Murder; NOT GUILTY of Aggravated Assault; NOT GUILTY of Terroristic Threats; Guilty of Simple Assault; and Guilty of Recklessly Endangering. Jefferson County.
Client was charged with Terroristic Threats and Harassment. Victim alleged that client made repeated calls and internet communications threatening physical violence, client visited the work place of victim threatening a physical confrontation. Defense counsel prepared a detailed legal memorandum regarding the law of Terroristic Threats for the presiding Magisterial District Judge and met with the arresting officer prior to the Preliminary Hearing. CHARGES WITHDRAWN. Mifflin County.
Client was charged with Terroristic Threats whereby the Commonwealth alleged that Client delivered drugs to a criminal informant and soon after, figuring he had been set up, agreed to meet with the informant at a Uni-Mart. While at the Uni-Mart, informant testified that Client threatened to kill him. The threatening statements were made while members of the Region IV Drug Strike Task Force and the Pennsylvania State Police were conducting surveillance. CHARGES DISMISSED; Centre County.
Client was charged with Terroristic Threats whereby the Commonwealth alleged that Client called his former supervisor and said I am loading my gun and I am coming over to kill you in front of your family. The Commonwealth called two eyewitness, the victim and a Pennsylvania State Trooper. JURY VERTDICT: NOT GUILTY; Clinton County.
Client was charged with Burglary, Criminal Trespass, and Simple Assault for an alleged incident that occurred during Arts Fest. At trial, defense counsel several weaknesses in the Commonwealths case by eliciting conflicting testimony of the commonwealths key witnesses on cross-examination. JURY VERDICT: Simple Assault NOT GUILTY; Burglary HUNG JURY; Criminal Trespass HUNG JURY. Centre County.
Client was charged with Burglary and other counts relating to the alleged theft of a safe from a family member. JURY VERDICT: NOT GUILTY. Blair County.
Client was charged with Criminal Trespass, Misdemeanor Theft, Misdemeanor Receiving Stolen Property and Misdemeanor Criminal Mischief when he entered through the window of an apartment he shared with his girlfriend but was in her name entirely. While inside, Client retrieved some belongings and caused some damage of an incidental and cursory nature. When girlfriend returned, she called police and Client was arrested. Conflicting testimony of the key government witness by experienced trial counsel at the Preliminary Hearing exposed several weaknesses in the Commonwealths case. In exchange for dismissing all Felony and Misdemeanor charges, Client was agreeable to pleading to a Summary Disorderly Conduct and a Summary Criminal Mischief in exchange for a nominal fine and costs.
Client was charged with summary offense of Criminal Trespass for allegedly failing to leave a Penn State tailgate outside of Beaver Stadium. After witnesses were sworn, defense counsel argued that the court must dismiss the case because of blatant errors in the non-traffic citation. CHARGE DISMISSED. Centre County.
Client left fraternity party to meet Girlfriend at the Crowbar. Upon exiting the fraternity, Client found a parked vehicle with the keys inside. Client did not know the owner. Client took vehicle and started driving toward the Crowbar. Client went wrong way on Locust directly into the path of a marked State College Police cruiser. Client made quick left onto Foster Ave and turned off lights to avoid identification. Siren, spotlight and overhead lights were activated. Vehicle finally stopped at Hetzel St. at which time Client exited the car and ran from police. Client was apprehended in downtown State College after 6 police officers gave chase. Clients BAC was 0.162% and he admitted to taking the car. Client was charged with Criminal Trespass (Felony), Receiving Stolen Property (Felony), Fleeing and Eluding Police (Misdemeanor) and DUI (Misdemeanor). Defense counsel was successful in suppressing statements taken in answer questions without being Mirandized and engaged in extended plea negotiations with Commonwealth attorney seeking to have the felonies dropped in exchange for pleas of guilty to the DUI and Fleeing. The Commonwealth refused to drop the felonies and proceeded to trial. Defense counsel stipulated to the blood alcohol level and to fleeing and eluding police. JURY VERDICT: Theft of a Motor Vehicle (Felony) NOT GUILTY; Receiving Stolen Property (Felony) NOT GUILTY. DUI and Fleeing Guilty. Centre County.
Client was charged with Criminal Trespass. Client was at bar with friend when the friend went behind the bar and grabbed bottle of liquor, began drinking from bottle, then passed bottle to Client. Client drank from bottle and passed to a third person. Bartender told all three people to pay tabs and leave. Friend became belligerent and threatened bartender. Client and friend left bar without paying bar tab. Police investigation uncovered damage done to bar doorway and a motorcycle in the parking lot. At the preliminary hearing, under cross-examination the witnesses acknowledged they did not see Client damage either the door or the motorcycle, and bartender admitted that friend had agreed to pay tab. CHARGES DISMISSED; Clearfield County.
Client was charged with Criminal Trespass, sexual offenses, indecent assault, harassment, and stalking. In a pre-trial motion, defense argued that prosecution of Client was in violation of 18 P.S. 110, which requires the government to file all charges arising from a criminal episode in one prosecution. The Court dismissed the criminal trespass charge but denied the remainder of the relief sought by defense counsel. Counsel filed a Motion for Reconsideration, and the Court granted the relief sought in its entirety. CRIMINAL INFORMATION QUASHED. Centre County.
Client was charged with two felony counts of Intimidation of a Witness and summary Harassment. Victim was a key witness in the Attorney Generals prosecution of a major drug distribution scheme. Client was alleged to have made threatening remarks, Client struck the victim in the face, and Client attempted to follow victim home. Since the Commonwealth could not prove that the accused had knowledge of the existence of victims subpoena, the case was resolved through a summary plea. The two felony charges were NOLLE PROSSED. Centre County.
Client was charged with Receiving Stolen Property, Firearms Not to be Carried Without a License, Persons not to Possess, Use, Manufacture, Control, Sell or Transfer Firearms, Simple Assault, Recklessly Endangering Another Person, Burglary, Criminal Trespass, and Resisting Arrest after police responded to a complaint of the suspect who had been in her house threatening her with a gun. Upon arrival police detained Client and requested information regarding the incident, at which time Client fled the scene while discarding a stolen handgun. After the preliminary hearing, the charges of Burglary, Criminal Trespass, and Resisting Arrest were dismissed. Defense counsel filed a suppression motion arguing that police lacked a reasonable and articulable suspicion to detain Client and that Client discarding the firearm was a result of the nature of the police chasing him. EVIDENCE SUPPRESSED: Berks County.
Client was charged with Resisting Arrest after a traffic stop. After heated discussion client attempted to leave scene and was restrained by officer. While being handcuffed, Client attempted unsuccessfully to head butt officer and was then forcibly taken to the ground. CHARGES DISMISSED. Centre County.
Client was charged with Recklessly Endangering Another Person. Clients daughter was being chased by another vehicle. As the vehicles proceeded towards Clients home, Client retrieved and loaded a shotgun. After the vehicles entered Clients driveway, Client fired one shot into the air. The man approached Client and fought for control of the weapon. A fight ensued and shots were fired. CHARGES DISMISSED. Centre County.
Client was stopped for DUI in Clinton County and charged with a second offense highest tier. If convicted, client would serve 90 days in prison, lose his license for 18 months, and be terminated from his job. After interviewing witnesses, reviewing the scene, and analyzing the legal issues, counsel filed a comprehensive pre-trial motion challenging the traffic stop, the blood sample, and the timeliness of the prosecution. Before the hearing on the defendants motion, the Commonwealth agreed to amend the Criminal Information to include one count of recklessly endangering and to dismiss the DWI counts. In exchange for a plea to one count of recklessly endangering, the Commonwealth agreed to 2 years probation. There was no jail time and no license suspension.
Client was charged with DUI when State Police initiated a traffic stop for speeding and careless driving after a two mile pursuit. Trooper detected an odor of alcoholic beverage on clients breath, client admitted to drinking, client failed field sobriety tests, and was taken for a blood sample which he refused. After a review of the dashboard camera video, a thorough review of the scene where the stop occurred, and an analysis of the method which the field sobriety tests were given, counsel filed a pre-trial motion seeking to have the evidence suppressed. The Commonwealth agreed to withdraw the DUI and allow client to plead to speeding and careless driving. DUI WITHDRAWN.
Client was arrested for DUI and was transported to a hospital for blood alcohol analysis. Client was released at his residence, but Client returned to the scene to retrieve his vehicle. Law enforcement was watching Clients vehicle and followed clients vehicle as it was driven from scene. Police followed vehicle until it parked at Clients house. Police then detained Client and arrested him a second time for DUI. Defense counsel filed pre-trial motion to suppress arguing that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to detain or probable cause to arrest Client in second DUI. EVIDENCE SUPPRESSED. Mifflin County.
Client was charged with DUI after police responded to traffic accident involving Clients vehicle. After law enforcement arrived on the scene, they were unable to locate the driver of the vehicle. The police contacted the Client at his house at which time he made statements that he had been consuming alcohol with dinner. Defense counsel argued that the Commonwealth was unable to establish that the Client was the driver of the vehicle at the time the action occurred. DUI charge was WITHDRAWN. Centre County.
Client was charged with DUI and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. At approximately 11:40 p.m., Client made a wide right turn and entered the opposing lane of traffic. An off-duty officer swerved to avoid a collision with Clients vehicle and contacted police. Client parked his vehicle at a nearby convenience store. The on-duty officer observed Client staggering in the convenience store parking lot. The on-duty officer followed Clients vehicle, observed Clients vehicle swerving within his lane of travel, and the then officer activated his overhead lights to effectuate a traffic stop. Client failed Field Sobriety Tests and a blood test showed a blood alcohol level of 0.162%. Defense counsel filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence, arguing the officer lacked the requisite probable case necessary to make stop Clients vehicle. EVIDENCE SUPPRESSED. Centre County.
Client was charged with DUI, Driving on Roadways Laned for Traffic, and Driving an Unregistered Vehicle. At approximately 1:50 a.m., a police officer observed Clients vehicle traveling visually fast, but the officer did not attempt to determine the actual speed. The officer followed Client for 4-5 minutes over a distance of 1 to 1 miles. Over a quarter mile section, the officer observed Clients vehicle cross into the other lane of travel in the same direction on three occasions for a few seconds. Clients vehicle crossed into the land a fourth time, straddling the middle of the two lanes for 6 to 7 seconds. Defense counsel filed a Motion to Suppress, arguing that the officer lacked probable cause necessary to stop Clients vehicle. The trial court denied the motion. Client was convicted. Defense counsel filed a timely appeal of the Trial Courts decision on the Suppression Motion to the Superior Court. REVERSED, EVIDENCE SUPPRESSED; Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Client was charged with DUI. Police received a 911 dispatch regarding a disabled or crashed vehicle on State Route 144 near Lower Greens Valley Road. Police arrived on the scene and found a damaged truck parked with the dome light illuminated and keys in the ignition but officers could not locate the driver. Officer detected outward sign of intoxication and interrogated Client in his home without Miranda warnings being provided. A blood test evidenced a blood alcohol content of 0.300%. CHARGES DISMISSED; Centre County.
Client was charged with DUI, Immediate Notice of Accident to Police Department, and Driving on Roadways Laned for Traffic. At approximately 1:00 a.m., Client lost control of his vehicle and sheered a utility pole, resulting in live wires on the roadway. Fire and ambulance personnel responded and described Client as being very intoxicated. Client was advised by EMS personnel that the State Police were en route. Client left the scene with no headlights and drove approximately two (2) miles before the vehicle seized because of extensive front-end damage. EMS followed Client and directed police to the new location. While conversing with the police, Client admitted to being the driver and to having consumed beer at two different bars earlier that evening. Client had a strong smell of alcohol emanating from his breath, slurred his speech, bloodshot glassy eyes, difficulty maintaining his balance, and had urinated in his pants. Client failed field sobriety tests and refused consent to give blood for analysis. Client was found NOT GUILTY on all counts; Jury Trial, Clinton County.
Client was charged with Client was charged with DUI. Police followed Clients vehicle from the Port Matilda legion to State Route 550. The police observed Clients vehicle cross the center line and into the opposing lane of traffic on three separate occasions. The officer activated his overhead lights and effectuated a traffic stop of Client. Client was transported to the hospital and blood analysis showed a blood alcohol level of 0.15%. Defense counsel filed a Motion to Suppress, arguing that the officer lacked probable cause that a violation of the Motor Vehicle Code had occurred, and therefore the stop of Clients vehicle violated both the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions. EVIDENCE SUPPRESSED; Centre County.
Client was charged with DUI, Driving Under Suspended License, and Failure to Utilize Required Signal. Client parked his vehicle along State Route 22 in front of used car lot at approximately 12:30 a.m. Officer pulled his cruiser behind Client to investigate. Client allegedly pulled onto Route 22 without utilizing the appropriate left hand turn signal. Clients BAC was 0.18%. Defense counsel filed a Motion to Suppress arguing the officer lacked probable cause to effectuate a traffic stop. EVIDENCE SUPPRESSED; Mifflin County.
Client was charged with DUI. Using radar, Pennsylvania State Police stopped clients vehicle for traveling 65 mph in a 45 mph zone at 12:38 a.m. Trooper smelled a strong odor of alcohol about the client, and noticed clients bloodshot and glassy eyes. Preliminary Breath Test showed a Blood Alcohol Content of 0.158%. Client refused chemical testing of blood. At the Preliminary Hearing the defense argued a routine traffic stop without more was insufficient to prove even a prima facie case of Incapable of Safe Driving. CHARGES DISMISSED; Centre County.
Client was charged with DUI. Clients vehicle struck a curb and became airborne on US Route 322. A tipster called police and reported the incident. The tipster followed client to her home and met the police officer. Clients BAC was 0.174%. After a trial by jury, client was ACQUITTED of the most serious DUI charge thereby avoiding a jail sentence of 90 days to 5 years and an 18-month loss of clients drivers license. JURY VERDICT; Centre County.
Client was charged with DUI. Clients vehicle crossed center lane and was involved in a head on collision. Commonwealth attempted to introduce evidence of the BAC at the Preliminary Hearing having tested blood plasma and not whole blood as required by Pennsylvania Law. The defendant successfully challenged the admissibility of the BAC. CHARGES DISMISSED; Centre County.
Client was charged with DUI. Client squealed the tires when exiting a parking garage at 2:23 a.m. A police officer timed the vehicle using a VASCAR PLUS speed-timing device and initiated a traffic stop. The cliens BAC was 0.156%. With expert testimony defense successfully argued that officers VASCAR timing was unreliable and the officer, therefore, lacked legal cause to initiate a traffic stop. EVIDENCE SUPPRESSED; Centre County.
Client was charged with DUI and failure to use required signals. Client was traveling at 3:27 a.m. when the Pennsylvania State Police initiated a traffic stop alleging that the client failed to use a turn signal while changing lanes. The clients BAC was 0.188%. After a detailed inspection of the subject roadway, including obtaining a videotape traffic analysis, we successfully argued the Trooper lacked probable cause to initiate a traffic stop as the turn signal violation was a de minimis violation of the motor vehicle code that did not provide sufficient basis for a traffic stop. EVIDENCE SUPPRESSED.
Client was charged with Client was charged with DUI. At approximately 2:50 a.m., a State Police Trooper observed Clients vehicle turn into a private driveway and stop. The Trooper drove past the parked vehicle and then saw Client back out of the driveway and proceed north. The Trooper turned off the roadway, waited for Clients vehicle to pass, and then followed Clients vehicle. Client turned into another private driveway, at which point the Trooper activated his emergency lights and effectuated a traffic stop. Trooper could not articulate any violation of the motor vehicle code and the stop was, therefore, unlawful. Defense counsel then brought a pre-trial motion. EVIDENCE SUPPRESSED; Mifflin County.