Attorney Brian M. Fishman's Legal Cases

Criminal defense

Commonwealth v. D.P.

Aug 21, 2014

OUTCOME: Not Guilty of Aggravated and Simple Assault after a Jury Trial

D.P. was charged with aggravated assault after he repeatedly punched and kicked the 15-year old victim repeatedly until other individuals pulled D.P. off the victim. The fight occurred on Saint Patrick ... 's Day 2013 in a playground where hundreds of teens were hanging out drinking. There were many of the victims friends who observed the fight and testified that D.P. started the fight. The victim ended up in the hospital for 3 days and had to have surgery to have his jaw wired shut for 7 weeks as it was fractured on both sides. His nose was also broken. The victim missed 3 months of school as a result of the attack. D.P. gave a statement to police prior to Mr. Fishman being hired. In addition, he posted a Facebook message to the victim's girlfriend the night of the fight admitting that he "dropped him" and "put him in his place". Mr. Fishman cross-examined one eyewitness after the other and got them to acknowledge under oath that they did not see how the fight began. He also was able to cross-examine the victim's girlfriend who acknowledge that her boyfriend was drunk and acting "out of control" because she had told him that someone was spreading a rumor that he was cheating on her. Despite the victim's denial, he initially told detectives that his girlfriend had said D.P. was the one spreading the rumors. With the confusing and inconsistent stories of the victim and his friends and a clear motive for the victim to start a fight with D.P., Mr. Fishman was able to successfully mount a claim of self-defense despite the fact that D.P. had no injuries.

Criminal defense

Commonwealth v. R.M.

Aug 01, 2014

OUTCOME: Not Guilty of Possession of a Firearm after Jury Trial

R.M. was found "not guilty" of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon following a jury trial where Mr. Fishman called into question a police officer's credibility. R.M. was on probation for posse ... ssion with intent to deliver and therefore was prohibited from possessing a firearm. Police were driving down Kensington Avenue close to 2 am when the officer who was a passenger in the patrol car said he looked down a small side street and observed R.M. pulling a gun from his waistband and passing it to D.W., his co-defendant. Based on these observations, police backed up and drove down the side street to investigate. Police indicate that they saw D.W. bending down by a car placing something in his sneakers. Police stopped R.M, D.W. and others they were with. D.W. was walking with no shoes. One officer walked back down the street and recovered D.W.'s shoes and found a revolver. Police arrested both D.W. and R.M. for possession of the gun. During trial, Mr. Fishman presented pictures of the area showing the narrowness of the side street, the lack of street lights and the cars parked on the side where R.M. was seen walking with his friends. Based on these pictures and additional cross-examination of the officer, Mr. Fishman created reasonable doubt that the officer could see R.M. ever pass the gun to D.W. The jury returned a verdict of "not guilty" on the sole charge of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. R.M. was facing 4-8 years for the gun charge and any consecutive time that his back judge may have imposed for the violation of her probation. Instead, R.M. walked out of court a free man and a pre-trial house arrest monitor removed from his ankle.

Criminal defense

Commonwealth v. J.W.

Dec 11, 2013

OUTCOME: Not guilty of Possession with Intent to Deliver afer Jury Trial

Client charged with possession with intent to deliver over ten grams of crack cocaine and facing a 5-10 year mandatory minimum sentence if convicted. Police responded to a domestic violence call and t ... he door was answered by client and a co-defendant. John W. asked if he could go upstairs to check on a double-amputee patient of his that lived in the back bedroom. Police allowed him to go upstairs but then saw him go into the front bedroom. Police followed him upstairs and observed him removing crack cocaine from a foot locker. Police arrested Mr. W. and executed a search warrant on the property. Recovered from the foot locker was additional crack, new and unused baggies used to package narcotics, a scale and other seller paraphernalia. The co-defendant also had crack on her person. Mr. Fishman successfully cross-examined two police officers who responded to the scene and ended up telling very different stories regarding what occurred. The officers' inconsistent statements called both officers' testimony into question. In addition, the co-defendant, who had previously pled guilty, was investigated by Mr. Fishman and she testified that all of the crack cocaine in the property belong to her. Based on the officers' contradictory testimony and the defense witness, John W. was found not guilty of all charges, had a house arrest bracelet removed from his ankle after the verdict and avoided a 5-10 year state sentence.

Criminal defense

Commonwealth v. D.C.

Nov 13, 2013

OUTCOME: Motion to Suppress Narcotics and Firearms Granted and All Charges Withdrawn

Client and friend charged with possession with intent to deliver, conspiracy and possessing an instrument of crime after a search warrant was served at their residence and a large amount of marijuana, ... a shotgun and handgun were recovered. Police executed the search warrant based on the fact that client's family was victim to a home invasion robbery and once inside the house police smelled an odor of marijuana. However, police not only searched the main residence but also searched a separately secured upstairs apartment that was not accessible from the house and had its own separately secured outside point of entry. Counsel presented facts, pictures and case law to demonstrate that police exceeded the authority of the search warrant beyond the permissible search area. Therefore, the search of the upstairs apartment was found to be illegal and that is where all of the contraband was found. Therefore, all illegal evidence was suppressed and all charges were withdrawn. The defendant was facing a mandatory 5-10 years incarceration if convicted of possession with intent to deliver and possessing an instrument of crime.

Criminal defense

Commonwealth v. M.S.

Oct 11, 2013

OUTCOME: Not Guilty of Robbery and All Charges after Bench Trial

Client charged with robbery, theft, assault and criminal mischief after the victim claimed that client got off bus behind him and grabbed the back of his pants and demanded, "Where's the money?" The tw ... o got in a scuffle and the victim claimed client took his cell phone and trailpass. Police responded to the disturbance and found client, who is 6' 8", on top of the 5' 8" victim with a trailpass in his possession and a cell phone broken on the ground. Police separated the parties and the victim explained his story to police. The victim failed to appear at trial so the Commonwealth proceeding with the officer who witnessed the incident and tried to get an excited utterance admitted as it relates to what the victim told police. The defense was successful in keeping out key testimony for the Commonwealth's case by challenging the excited utterance and questioning the officer's observations.

Criminal defense

Commonwealth v. Tyrone D.

Sep 20, 2013

OUTCOME: Motion to Suppress Narcotics Granted and All Charges Dismissed

Defendant arrested for possession of narcotics after police allege that they observed him throw a baggie of marijuana into an open car window and then recovered those drugs along with crack cocaine on ... his person. The defense presented evidence at a motion to suppress by way of an eyewitness that police actually pulled defendant out of the vehicle and searched both the vehicle and defendant. That evidence was corroborated when the defense presented the owner of the vehicle and pictures showing significant damage to the interior of the vehicle that was not there prior to the officers' search. The court believed the defense witnesses and did not believe the officers and therefore granted a pre-trial motion to suppress the narcotics on the basis of credibility.

Criminal defense

Commonwealth v. Dante C.

Jul 17, 2013

OUTCOME: Prosecution Withdrawn after Motion to Suppress Drugs Granted

Client arrested and charged with possession of a controlled substance after he was stopped by police and 19 packets of crack cocaine were recovered off his person. Police stopped and investigated clie ... nt after he was observed on a known drug corner with another who was arrested after police saw a baggie with narcotics sticking out of his hoodie pocket. Counsel was able to establish through cross-examination and a defense witness that (1) the police officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk client and (2) the officer did not testify credibly as to his observations regarding what client was doing and whether he was involved in any illegal activity.

Criminal defense

Commonwealth v. Bilal S.

Jun 04, 2013

OUTCOME: Not Guilty of Gun charges, Guilty of DUI

Client charged with two counts of firearm possession and DUI after he was found asleep in his running vehicle on the street and police recovered a firearm from the car. Facing a state sentence if conv ... icted of the firearm offenses but got only a 3 day jail sentence for the DUI.

Criminal defense

Commonwealth v. Tory S.

May 28, 2013

OUTCOME: Prosecution Withdrawn after Motion to Suppress Granted

Client, who was on state parole and facing backtime if convicted, charged with possession of crack cocaine after police stopped him because they saw a baggie sticking out of his hoodie pocket. Police ... recovered 20 packets of crack cocaine from client.

Criminal defense

Commonwealth v. Dayna H.

Feb 25, 2013

OUTCOME: Not Guilty of All Charges following a Bench Trial

Client charged with domestic aggravated assault after the victim alleged that the defendant repeatedly punched her causing her to lose consciousness and suffer post-concussion syndrome. The defense wa ... s able to successfully have the felony aggravated assault charges dismissed following a preliminary hearing. At trial, the defense completely called into questions the victim's version of the events by pointing to the victim's prior criminal past, her lack of medical attention, an eyewitness who testified that the victim was the first aggressor and evidence that the defendant was actually the one who suffered injuries on the night of the incident

Brian M. Fishman's Legal Cases (25)

Commonwealth v. D.P.

Commonwealth v. R.M.

Commonwealth v. J.W.

Commonwealth v. D.C.

Commonwealth v. M.S.

Commonwealth v. Tyrone D.

Commonwealth v. Dante C.

Commonwealth v. Bilal S.

Commonwealth v. Tory S.

Commonwealth v. Dayna H.