Perry v. Borough of Middletown et al.(U.S. Dist. Court, M.D. PA 2011) Early in the morning of May 15, 2008, Deana Perry and her husband were woken by loud pounding on their door and bedroom windows. When she opened the door, a team of officers from the Middletown Police Department and the Dauphin County Drug Task Force burst into their home. Mrs. Perry was handcuffed and forced to sit partially naked on a stool as officers ransacked her home. During the search, officers found intimate pictures that Mrs. Perry had taken for her husband. Upon discovering the pictures the officers continued to laugh and make crude comments in her presence. The officers then placed one of the intimate pictures in the front window of the home, along with a neon yellow bumper sticker saying “Busted …Say No to Drugs.” All charges against Mrs. Perry were dropped. We then pursued a federal civil rights suit against the Drug Task Force and Middletown officer, which was settled for $100,000.00.
Shope v. Lancaster County Children & Youth Services (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2008) – On June 8, 2006, the year old daughter of Patricia Shope was taken to the Lancaster General Hospital where she was diagnosed with ear infections (otitis media). For reasons that never became clear, a social worker for Lancaster County Children & Youth Services (“CYS”) came to the hospital, without reasonable suspicion, and took custody of the child. The mother was required to see two different psychologists, at the request of CYS, both of whom found no issues with the mother. Despite the fact that CYS never had any evidence of abuse or neglect, they retained custody of the child until August, 2006. Following the child’s return, we instituted a federal civil rights lawsuit alleging 14th Amendment violations. The case settled on the eve of trial when CYS agreed to pay Ms. Shope $125,000 for the Constitutional violation.
Knopick v. Downey (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 2011) In a legal malpractice action, the district court dismissed Mr. Knopick’s case because it erroneously applied the two-years statute of limitations to the suit. Wherein the plaintiffs divorce attorney had failed to call witnesses resulting in a loss to Mr. Knopick of over $2,000,000. On appeal, the Third Circuit reversed and reinstated his case, holding that Mr. Knopick-who was assured by his attorneys that he could not possibly lose his case-could not have reasonably known that his attorneys committed any malpractice in 2004 until the court ruled against him in 2005 because of that malpractice.
Commonwealth v. McManus (Court of Common Pleas of York County, 2011) Mr. McManus was charged by the District Attorney’s Office with multiple felony counts, including two Counts of Theft by Deception, Theft by Failure to Make Required Disposition of Funds, and two Counts of Deceptive Business Practices alleging to have occurred in April, 2004 and June, 2005. It was alleged that Mr. McManus, who was the owner of a construction business, received funds from customers for jobs that he did not complete, and inevitably, did not return the funds. We maintained that Mr. McManus was experiencing financial difficulties and that during this time frame, filed for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. Upon our review of the specifics of the case, we determined that all of the charges had a five year Statute of Limitations or had been discharged under the Bankruptcy Code. We proceeded to file a Motion to Dismiss, and after oral arguments, the Court dismissed all of the charges.
Commonwealth v. Reese (Court of Common Pleas of York County, 2011) Mr. Reese was driving in Fairview Township in the early morning hours when he was pulled over by a Fairview Township Police officer for an “object” hanging from Mr. Reese’s rearview mirror. The object was an air freshener. Mr. Reese was subsequently charged with Driving Under the Influence and Driving with a Suspended License. We thereafter filed a Motion to suppress evidence of the stop alleging that the stop on Mr. Reese was unreasonable and that any evidence obtained was in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Immediately prior to oral argument, the District Attorney’s Office offered to drop all misdemeanor charges and allow Mr. Reese to plead to a summary traffic offense resulting in only a $25.00 fine.
United States v. Demetrius Greene (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 2011) Mr. Greene was convicted of and pled guilty to Conspiracy to Distribute 50 or More Grams of Cocaine Base and Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering. Mr. Greene subsequently pled guilty to Conspiracy to Distribute 50 or More Grams of Cocaine Base pursuant to a Plea Agreement. Objections to the Pre-Sentence Report were filed, and after a hearing, the Court overruled the objections and adopted the Report as it was written. Mr. Greene was subsequently sentenced to 360 months incarceration. We represented Mr. Greene on appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. After researching the issues involved, briefs were prepared and filed with the Court. The Third Circuit thereafter found that the District Court had erred in overruling the objections, and remanded the case to the District Court for a new sentencing hearing.
United States v. Chambers-Galis (U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA, 2010) Ms. Chambers-Galis was Indicted by a federal grand jury with five counts of money laundering and one count of wire fraud. It was alleged that Ms. Chambers-Galis was the President of a real estate settlement company who misappropriated client funds and used corporate funds for her own personal use. We maintained that Ms. Chambers-Galis had moved funds at the direction of the owner of the company, and that any funds taken for her personal use were approved. After a jury trial, Ms. Chambers-Galis was acquitted of the five money laundering counts. She was convicted of only a single count of wire fraud.
United States v. McGee (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 2010) Following conviction, Mr. McGee attempted to challenge his conviction pro se (without a lawyer), however due to restrictions and procedures of the Bureau of Prisons, Mr. McGee was unable to reproduce relevant material necessary to be provided to the Court. Mr. McGee alleged that his inability to reproduce the necessary documents was a direct result of the implementation of the Bureau of Prison’s Inmate Financial Responsibility Plan, where he was restricted to $25.00 per month commissary spending. Mr. McGee’s filed a Habeas Corpus Petition which was subsequently denied by the District Court. We were subsequently appointed by the Court to represent Mr. McGee before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals raising the issue that the denial of the Petition was in error and that the filing of a Habeas Petition was the proper venue for pursuant this argument. After briefing the issue, the Court of Appeals vacated the judgment of the District Court.
Kelly v. Borough of Carlisle, 622 F.3d 248 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 2010) Mr. Kelly was arrested for a felony under Pennsylvania’s Wiretap Act by the Carlisle Police Department for recording a traffic stop with a hand held video-camera. The Cumberland County District Attorney’s office dismissed the charges against him because it is not illegal to record a police officer on a public street. We filed suit in federal court alleging that the arrest violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The district court dismissed the case, believing that the officer should not be held responsible. On appeal, the Third Circuit reversed and held that it was clearly not illegal under Pennsylvania law to record a police officer who lacked any expectation of privacy. Since no law had been violated, Mr. Kelly’s constitutional rights had been violated.
Commonwealth v. Rainey (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2010) Shortly before his murder trial, the prosecution notified Mr. Rainey of a new government witness, Brandon Davis, who would testify that Mr. Rainey asked him to kill a witness. Mr. Rainey’s attorney moved to withdraw as counsel because his conflict of interest as to Mr. Davis, who he had represented on multiple criminal cases. The court of common pleas denied the motion, and the jury convicted Mr. Rainey of third-degree murder. We represented Mr. Rainey on appeal. The Superior Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court denied Mr. Rainey his right to effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment by making him proceed to trial with an attorney who had a clear conflict of interest.
Commonwealth v. Cave (Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, 2009)
Mr. Cave was serving a prison term when he threw his own feces at a correction’s officer. For this, he was charged with aggravated harassment by a prisoner, a third degree felony. Upon our motion, the Court appointed an independent medical examiner to determine whether Mr. Cave-who appeared to suffer from multiple severe mental disorders-was able to understand the nature of his actions. Ultimately, all charges against Mr. Cave were dismissed.
Stoner v. State Correctional Institute – Albion (U.S. Dist. Court, W.D. PA 2009). Mr. Stoner was incarcerated at State Correctional Institute at Albion with a maximum release date of September 3, 2007; however, for some unknown reason, he was not released on that date. When he was not released, he notified his prison counselor and the records department of his plight, and filed a written request for release and an official grievance, which was arbitrarily denied. Mr. Stoner then appealed to the prison’s Superintendent who upheld his baseless detention. Ultimately, Mr. Stoner was released on October 11, 2007. As a result of the prison’s deliberate indifference to his constitutional rights, Mr. Stoner spent 38 days in prison for no legitimate reason. We then pursued a federal civil rights suit against the personnel responsible for Mr. Stoner’s unlawful detention. After the suit was filed the case was settled for $25,000.00.
Snell v. City of York 564 F.3d 659 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 2009) Mr. Snell was arrested by the City of York Police Department for disorderly conduct when he stepped into an alley next to Planned Parenthood to peacefully counsel women approaching the abortion clinic. Mr. Snell was ultimately found not guilty of disorderly conduct. We filed suit in federal court to vindicate Mr. Snell’s First and Fourth Amendment rights. The district court dismissed the case, but on appeal, the Third Circuit reversed and reinstated the case for trial. The Third Circuit found that Mr. Snell demonstrated that the police unlawfully arrested him based upon his beliefs while allowing Planned Parenthood employees and patrons to walk in the same alley that the police arrested him for using.
McTernan v. City of York, 579 F.3d 521 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 2009) The City of York Police department threatened to arrest Mr. McTernan if he entered an alley next to Planned Parenthood to peacefully counsel women who approaching the abortion clinic. We filed suit in federal court alleging that this threat of arrest violated his First Amendment rights. The district court dismissed the case, but on appeal, the Third Circuit reversed and reinstated the case for trial. The Third Circuit held that the police department singled him out based upon his beliefs, thereby discriminating against him.
Commonwealth v. Evans (Court of Common Pleas of York County, 2009). Mr. Evans was convicted of indecent assault and corruption of minors. We were retained after conviction and alleged that Mr. Evans’ prior counsel was ineffective in his representation of Mr. Evans and requested relief under the Post-Conviction Relief Act. The Court of Common Pleas of York County agreed and granted Mr. Evans a right to appeal his conviction.
Commonwealth v. Clugston (Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, 2009). Mr. Clugston, and several of his neighbors, witnessed police officers arrest a drunk driver in his neighborhood. However, after making the arrest, the officers singled out Mr. Clugston, who was standing over forty feet away from the incident, and an altercation ensued. Mr. Clugston claimed to have been attacked by police; two police officers said that Mr. Clugston struggled and resisted arrest. During the arrest, the officers grabbed Mr. Clugston by his hair and slammed him on the ground so hard that his shoe flew off. Based upon this incident, Mr. Clugston went to a jury trial on the charge of resisting arrest. Following a two-day trial at which several witnesses testified on Mr. Clugston’s behalf, Mr. Clugston was found not guilty.
T.G. v. County of Dauphin (U.S. Dist. Court, M.D. PA 2009). T.G. was a 12 year old juvenile who was taken to the Shaffner Youth Detention Center after a minor altercation at school. The problems at school were resolved by way of a consent decree. While at Shaffner, however, one of the counselors grabbed T.G. and threw him to the ground, breaking his collarbone. We filed suit in federal court alleging that the counselor used excessive force. Following mediation in the matter, Dauphin County agreed to pay T.G. $125,000.00.
Burrell v. Foose and Bailey (U.S. Dist. Court, M.D. PA 2009). Police officers responded to a mall parking lot to investigate a report of a “suspicious individual“. Upon arriving at the scene, they found Mr. Burrell who was lawfully sitting in his vehicle, and not doing anything illegal. Nevertheless, police placed Mr. Burrell under arrest and when he protested his arrest, he was tasered by the police. Subsequently, Mr. Burrell was found not guilty of all charges before the Court of Common Pleas of Union County. We then pursued a federal civil rights suit against the police officers, that was settled on the eve of trial for $28,000.00.
Commonwealth v. Bozeman and Simpson (Court of Common Pleas of York County 2009). On Christmas Eve, Ms. Simpson and Ms. Bozeman went to the home of a neighbor to see Ms. Simpson’s husband who she believed was fixing some items in need of home repair for the neighbor who was a widow. When she arrived at the neighbors home, her knock at the door went unanswered, so she entered the neighbors home where she discovered her husband and the neighbor in the midst of an affair. A melee then ensued between Ms. Simpson, Mr. Simpson and Ms. Bozeman, Ms. Simpson’s daughter who was coming to her aid. Ms. Bozeman called the Pennsylvania State Police for assistance; however, when the trooper arrived, he charged Ms. Simpson and Ms. Bozeman with serious felony level charges, including burglary and attempted burglary. Following a jury trial, Ms. Simpson and Ms. Bozeman were acquitted of all serious charges.
Commonwealth v. Cook (Court of Common Pleas of McKean County 2009). Mr. Cook is a building contractor operating in Western New York and Northwestern Pennsylvania. In 2007, he entered into a contract with two churches to repair their roofs, and he received down payments from both churches. Due to circumstances beyond Mr. Cook’s control, his bank accounts were wrongfully frozen by the IRS, and he was not able to purchase the supplies or pay the employees he needed to repair the roofs in question. He was therefore arrested, extradited from New York and charged with felony theft by deception. Following discussions with the McKean County District Attorney, all charges against Mr. Cook were dismissed.
Shope v. Lancaster County Children & Youth Services (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2008) – On June 8, 2006, the year old daughter of Patricia Shope was taken to the Lancaster General Hospital where she was diagnosed with ear infections (otitis media). For reasons that never became clear, a social worker for Lancaster County Children & Youth Services (“CYS”) came to the hospital, without reasonable suspicion, and took custody of the child. The mother was required to see two different psychologists, at the request of CYS, both of whom found no issues with the mother. Despite the fact that CYS never had any evidence of abuse or neglect, they retained custody of the child until August, 2006. Following the child’s return, we instituted a federal civil rights lawsuit alleging 14th Amendment violations. The case settled on the eve of trial when CYS agreed to pay Ms. Shope $125,000 for the Constitutional violation.
Commonwealth v. Cote (Court of Common Pleas of York County, 2008). Mr. Cote was sitting in the backseat of a vehicle that a police officer pulled over for speeding. Although Mr. Cote was not suspected of committing any crime, the police officer ordered Mr. Cote to exit the vehicle. Furthermore, without any probable cause to believe that the vehicle contained weapons or contraband, the officer went ahead and searched the vehicle anyway. In the search of the car, the officer allegedly found drug paraphernalia and a small amount of marijuana. When confronted with the alleged contraband, Mr. Cote allegedly confessed to criminal activity. The officer charged Mr. Cote with various drug offenses. We moved to suppress all of the evidence and the alleged confession, arguing that the officer violated Mr. Cote’s constitutional rights by ordering him out of the vehicle, searching the car, and questioning him without probable cause. The Court of Common Pleas of York County agreed and granted Mr. Cote’s motion to dismiss. Left without any evidence of criminal conduct, the prosecutor dropped the charges against Mr. Cote.
Commonwealth v. D.W. (Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, and appeal of CYS finding of abuse, 2008) – This case began when the ex-wife of client’s husband accused our client of sexually abusing her step-son. As a result of the ex-wife’s report, Dauphin County Children & Youth Services (“CYS”) took custody of the step-son and his two brothers, placing them in foster care. The police and district attorney’s office also began investigations, and the ex-wife filed a Protection From Abuse (“PFA”) Petition on behalf of the step-son. We were able to become involved in the case at its inception. Following a hearing on the PFA, we succeeded in convincing the Judge to dismiss the PFA. Through the use of a private investigator, we were then able to develop information showing that the ex-wife had a history of making false sexual abuse allegations and found witnesses that saw the ex-wife coaching the children. CYS withdrew its dependence petition at the pre-trial conference, and the police and district attorney decided not to prosecute. Even so, CYS made a finding of “founded” with respect to the abuse, causing the client substantial hardship. We appealed that finding to the Department of Public Welfare, which has jurisdiction over CYS agencies. An administrative law judge found no evidence of abuse, reversed the finding, and cleared our client of any suspicion of wrong doing.
Commonwealth v. Williams (Court of Common Pleas of York County 2008). Mr. Williams was charged with first and second degree murder following a shooting death of another individual in the City of York. There was no question that Mr. Williams fired the fatal shot; however, we maintained that Mr. Williams did not act with premeditation and that he was not involved in the commission of a felony, which are required elements of first and second degree murder. Following a jury trial, the jury agreed with the defense and Mr. Williams was convicted of only the lessor offense of third degree murder.
Commonwealth v. Doll (Court of Common Pleas of York County, 2007).After a fire at Mr. Doll’s business, police were summoned from Carroll Township for purposes that did not become clear at trial.Once police arrived, they apprehended Ken Doll and an altercation ensued.Mr. Doll claimed to have been attacked by police; two police officers said that Mr. Doll attacked them.During the altercation, Mr. Doll was struck three times in the head from behind by police officers.He was thereafter maced and tasered twice.Police thereafter charged Mr. Doll with aggravated assault, resisting arrest, disorderly conduct, and interfering with fie operations.Following a week-long jury trial at which more than 20 witnesses testified, Mr. Doll was found not guilty of all charges.
Commonwealth v. Swift (Court of Common Pleas of York County, 2007).Mr. Swift had been identified by a store clerk as the perpetrator of the robbery of a convenience store in southern York County.Through the use of a private investigator, David Crill of Archangel Investigations, we were able to develop information proving that Mr. Swift was actually substantially taller than the real perpetrator.We were also able to establish a individual in Maryland who was likely the real perpetrator.Following a jury trial, Mr. Swift was found not guilty of all charges.
United States v. Hawkins (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania, 2006) – Mr. Hawkins was convicted of several drug related offenses. We were retained after conviction and alleged that Mr. Hawkins’ prior counsel was ineffective in his representation of Mr. Hawkins and requested relief under 28 U.S.C. §2255. The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted our petition and granted Mr. Hawkins a right to appeal.
United States v. Gonzalez (U.S. Court of Appeals, 2006) – After pleading guilty to relatively minor offenses, Mr. Gonzalez was sentenced to a period of incarceration that we believed exceeded the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. On appeal, the court found that the sentence violated the Guidelines and remanded the case for a new sentencing hearing. This represented the second successful appeal of Mr. Gonzalez’s sentence. At re-sentencing, Mr. Gonzalez received a sentence that was approximately one-half of what his original sentence had been.
Commonwealth v. Horst (Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County, 2005) – Mr. Horst was arrested after talking to two minor girls for attempting to lure children into a motor vehicle. One of the charged against Mr. Horst was dismissed before trial, and the jury found Mr. Horst not guilty of the other charge.
Grove v. Reed (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania, 2005) – A minister filed suit against the City of Harrisburg and various officials for violations of his First Amendment rights of free speech, freedom of religion and freedom of association. Following a jury trial, the jury found the City and its officials had violated Pastor Grove’s rights, and the Court entered an Order prohibiting further discrimination against Pastor Grove based on the content of his speech.
United States v. Lopez-Rosado (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania – 2005) – Mr. Lopez-Rosado pled guilty to several drug offenses, but received a sentence that he believed was inappropriately severe. After his conviction and sentence, we were retained to represent Mr. Lopez-Rosado and filed a petition alleging that his prior defense counsel was constitutionally ineffective and requested relief under 28 U.S.C. §2255. The Court granted our petition, giving Mr. Lopez-Rosado the right to challenge his sentence on appeal.
United States v. Mornan (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2005) – A citizen of Jamaica and resident of Canada was charged in a multi-count indictment with international mail fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering. Following his convictions in U.S. District Court, we represented Mornan on appeal arguing that the trial court had impermissibly sentenced Mornan for conduct that had not been proven before a jury. The court found that Mornan’s rights had been violated and vacated his sentence entitling him to a new sentencing hearing.
Hollawell v. Gillis (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2004) – Successfully represented a state prisoner in federal habeas corpus action challenging his continued incarceration as a violation of the ex post facto clause of the U.S. Constitution. The court found the 1996 amendments to the state parole statute unconstitutional and Hollawell was released from custody.
United States v. Holland (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania 2003) – Successfully defended an individual charged with the drug-related murder of a competing drug dealer in Susquehanna Township. Jury was unable to agree on a verdict, and the government subsequently dismissed the murder charge. Holland was convicted of the lesser charge of distribution of narcotics.
Zeigler v. Mount Carmel Area School District (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2003) – Mount Carmel Superintendent and principal were sued civilly for violation of the federal civil rights act by parents of a former student who had committed suicide. The U.S. District Court granted a motion to dismiss the case in favor of the superintendent and principal. The dismissal was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
