Alfonso Gambone

I was arrested for a simple assault charge and was giving a conditional guilty plea, in which I had to attend anger management classes , at the same time I was not able to get in trouble of any sort to be arrested. Wouldn't you know I got arrested four/five days later for distribution of narcotics (a...llegedly). Now that I violated the plea, I knew there was a possibility of up to a 2 year sentence and than having to deal with the other charges, i knew that it was time to hire a private attorney. Alfonso Gambone told me " when I go to trial... I win" . The confidence and eagerness Mr Gambone had towards my case made me feel more at ease, so I hired him. Mr. Gambone had responded to every phone call and text I made , he kept me informed at all times and also educated me about what was going on and how we were going to proceed in defending myself. After going through the court process with both these cases Mr Gambone stayed eager and confident on winning. Long story short..... I had trial July 1 , and thanks to him we did win! all charges were dropped! Case dismissed! Alfonso Gambone is an excellent lawyer and I would recommend him a thousand times over.

My case was very stressful to me for many reasons. From the first day to the last day Mr. Gambone was in tune with my needs, both legally and emotionally. With his knowledge and experience he made me feel at ease while providing me with excellent service. He was personable one on one as well as in... the court room. Most notably Mr. Gambone had a presence in the court room that demanded respect and consideration of his points. There was an instance where he objected to certain testimony being given before it had been decided to be allowed, but the judge overruled his objection. This was a most obvious mistake by the judge as we were in the process of making a motion to suppress the evidence in question. Therefore that evidence and testimony should not be given until after the decision has been made whether or not to suppress said evidence. It seemed that the judge was too distracted by his computer screen to fully grasp the objection at that moment. Mr. Gambone respectfully sat down, but when the prosecuting lawyer tried to continue with the questioning along the lines of the evidence, Mr. Gambone objected again insisting that it was extremely inappropriate to proceed in this manner at that specific time during the motion to suppress. The judge finally agreed and sustained his objection. This interaction between the two lawyers and the judge set the stage for the rest of the proceeding, forcing the judge to take Mr. Gambone seriously for the remainder of the case. The motion to suppress started with testimony by the arresting officer. During the interrogation the prosecuting lawyer was trying to make the officer seem trustworthy, but the officer repeatedly knew exact details about certain things and absolutely no details about other things. This made him seem somewhat untrustworthy like he was trying to manipulate the testimony to sound the best it could. When he was cross-interrogated by Mr. Gambone, he drove the point home, mainly by continually pointing out that his accusations of my nervousness at the traffic stop were obviously exaggerated. Mainly he pointed out that anyone would be nervous when pulled out of the car. At one point the police officer refused to answer Mr. Gambone's questions and instead just kept repeating that "He was extremely nervous" over and over again. After ample discussion about the details of my nervousness the judge finally said "Ok we all get it that he was nervous, please proceed." This showed that he really drove the point home that the police officer's accusations were prolifically exaggerated. The rest of the motion to suppress was a heated debate mainly involving the case Gary VS Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. At this point the judge became very involved picking apart the arguments of both lawyers. This is where Alphonso Gambone really started to shine. It became obvious that he was highly informed about the details of the Gary case which many Prosecutors have been using as past precedence to allow a probable cause search when smelling marijuana in a car. The truth of that case is that someone in the car said "Yeah there's a little herb in the car." as well as there being the odor of Marijuana. This made the probable cause search ok because they knew for sure that there were drugs in the car and couldn't in good consciousness let the evidence drive away. In my case, I never said anything about there being anything in the car, and never gave them permission to search my car. In the end, Mr. Gambone commanded the attention and respect of everyone in the room through his body language, manner of speaking, and straight forward approach.