White Oak, PA
Criminal defense Lawyer at White Oak, PA
Practice Areas: Criminal Defense, Appeals, Ethics & Professional Responsibility
OUTCOME: Reversed
Client was accused of domestic assault. His lawfully owned firearm was taken from him as a result. Criminal charges were ultimately dropped. He filed motion for return of property of firearm. The C ... ommonwealth adduced no evidence demonstrating that the gun was contraband per se. Trial court nonetheless refused to return the firearm. Appeal taken to Commonwealth Court. Court reversed in published opinion. 287 A.3d 960
OUTCOME: Guilty; Favorable jury finding to negate 15-year mandatory minimum
In October of 2019, Attorney James received his first federal court-appointment as a member of the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) panel—a select group of private criminal-defense attorneys vetted to handle ... federal cases. That first appointment was to one of the 48 co-defendants named in the drug-conspiracy case known as the “Landfried indictment.” The Department of Justice, and former U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Scott Brady, touted the indictment as “dismantl[ing] one of the largest prison drug smuggling rings in the country.” https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdpa/pr/multi-state-drug-smuggling-prison-ring-dismantled Attorney James along with two of his colleagues, represented three of the remaining defendants in the case in the first trial group of four. After five full trial days of testimony and argument before U.S. District Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan, the jury returned verdicts of guilty as to all defendants after a full day of deliberation. As to Attorney James’s client only, however, the jury did not find his involvement as to cocaine or heroin, thus negating the possibility of either a 10- or 15-year mandatory-minimum sentence.
OUTCOME: Vacated and remanded
Client was convicted of six separate conspiracy counts at trial. Appeal was taken challenging all of the conspiracy counts, and the Superior Court vacated five of them and remanded for resentencing.
OUTCOME: Charges dismissed
Client was alleged to have been part of a robbery conspiracy. Testimony at the preliminary hearing established that client ran when his co-defendant pistol whipped the victim. Petition for Writ of Ha ... beas Corpus was filed challenging sufficiency of the evidence.
OUTCOME: Evidence suppressed.
Suppression hearing was conducted, then Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued decision that changed the law with respect to warrantless searches of vehicles. A supplemental motion was therefore filed to c ... hallenge warrantless entry into client's vehicle.
OUTCOME: No-contest plea to lesser offense of
Client was charged in a murder-for-hire plot. Originally charged with a conspiracy to commit murder, but that charged was dismissed pretrial. Commonwealth amended charges, but following preparation f ... or trial and pretrial litigation, the Commonwealth offered a no-contest plea to a second-degree misdemeanor for probation.
OUTCOME: Evidence suppressed
Sheriff deputies made entry into client’s hotel room with an arrest warrant but not a separate search warrant. They recovered guns and drugs. Suppression hearing challenged search and entry of hotel ... room.
OUTCOME: Evidence suppressed
Client's car was lawfully stopped for a traffic violation but extended for an investigatory detention. Client was pulled from car while a K-9 sniff was completed on the exterior. The K-9 made a hit o ... n the car, but nothing was found in the car. All the while the client was detained, in handcuffs, and he was questioned without the benefit of Miranda. His statements led the police to search his person, although they had no probable cause nor reasonable suspicion to do so.
OUTCOME: Removal from Megan's Law registry
Client's crimes and convictions predated the first version of Pennsylvania sex-crime-registration scheme, known as the Megan's Law registry. The client sued the Pennsylvania State Police to be removed ... from the registry because the application of the law to him was an unconstitutional ex post facto law. The Commonwealth Court agreed, 7-0.
OUTCOME: Evidence suppressed
Client was the backseat passenger in an SUV. Police officer observed the SUV go in reverse after missing a turn. The car did not reverse in an unsafe manner or interfere with any other traffic. Base ... d upon the reversing maneuver, the officer conducted a vehicle stop and later recovered contraband as a result of the stop.
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
