Com. V. R.M., 2006

(abbreviated to protect privacy)

Jury Trial for client charged with Aggravated Assault by Driving Under the Influence (Felony), Leaving the Scene of an Accident where Serious Bodily Injury Occurred (Felony), Leaving the Scene of an Accident (Misdemeanor), DUI (Misdemeanor), and minor summary traffic offenses. Defendant was accused of drinking alcohol and driving head on into another car on a country road. Thereafter, the Defendant was accused of removing the license plate and fleeing the scene -- abandoning both his passenger and the family in the car that he struck. After Trial, the Jury acquitted the Defendant of all Felony Counts.


Com. v. C.J., 2007 (abbreviated to protect privacy)

Client was charged with twenty counts of Robbery, Kidnapping, and Conspiracy in a home invasion involving 5 alleged victims where a family was held at gun point while the son was taken to the family's local business to collect money. Mitochondrial DNA found on a bag at the house was allegedly connected to the Defendant. Defendant contended that he was not present at the scene. The Mitochondrial DNA expert was extensively cross examined. The son who was allegedly kidnapped was also extensively cross examined, exposing inconsistencies in his story. After a full jury trial, the jury acquitted the defendant of all charges


Com. v. C.W., 2008

(abbreviated to protect privacy)

Client was accused of trespass and rape based upon the alleged illegal entry and rape of a female friend inside of her house while the Defendant's girlfriend waited outside of the house in a car. The Defendant's semen was found inside the alleged victim. After cross examination of the investigating detective, safe nurse and alleged victim numerous inconsistencies were uncovered. The Defendant testified that the sex was consensual. The Defendant was acquitted of all charges.

 


Com. v. R.S., 2009

(abbreviated to protect privacy)

 

Defendant charged with DUI and resisting arrest after a officer allegedly witnessed the Defendant speeding and thereafter proceeded on a high speed chase ending in the Defendant's driveway, where a physical confrontation with the officer was alleged to have occurred. Defendant refused blood alcohol test. Resisting Arrest was negotiated out of the case prior to Trial. At Trial, the Defendant admitted to drinking a couple of beers, denied running from the police, denied being drunk, and stated that he was beat up by the officer. Jury acquitted the Defendant of DUI.

 


Com. v. O.M., 2010

(abbreviated to protect privacy)

 

 

Twenty year old client charged along with two other co-defendants was charged with the rape of a 14 year old girl and 16 year old girl at his house during a party. The two co-defendants plead guilty to sex charges immediately prior to trial. Girls testified that multiple assailants sexually assaulted them. On cross examination, numerous inconsistencies in the girls stories were uncovered. Defendant testified that there was consensual sex and that he believed that both girls were above the age of consent. Defendant admitted to giving alcohol to both girls. In Pennsylvania there is no defense to corrupting the morals of a minor by giving them alcohol where the minor is actually under the age of 16.


Com. v. D.F., 2010

(abbreviated to protect privacy)

 

 

 

Client was accused of Aggravated Assault, Simple Assault, Recklessly Endangering, and Harassment based upon an alleged victim sustaining injuries from a fight occurring at a local music festival. Eyewitnesses testified regarding the fight in progress. The alleged victim (a married man) testified about a secret relationship that he was having with the Defendant's wife. He also described the fight and the resulting hospitalization and rehabilitation for his orbital fractures and compound leg fracture. The Defendant testified that the alleged victim took the first swing, but then received the worst of it. After trial, a jury acquitted the Defendant of Aggravated Assault and Simple Assault and found the Defendant Guilty of Harassment and Recklessly Endangering. The Defendant was sentenced to probation.


USA v. K.S., 2013

 

(abbreviated to protect privacy)

 

 

An older defendant with a long criminal record had little choice but attempt to litigate suppression motions and fight the US Government in this difficult robbery case.  The defendant was discovered in a car that was being followed by FBI agents who were using wiretaps and a confidential informant to set up a take down of Defendant.  Interstate 81 was closed in both directions during the stop. Despite attempts to suppress evidence and create reasonable doubt, a taped confession of the client given to the confidential informaant came into evidence during trial, making it difficult win at Trial.  The Third Circuit agreed that the suppression motions should have been denied and the Supreme Court of the United States denied the Writ of Certiorari filed by Attorney Reish.


Com. v. M.G., 2013

(abbreviated to protect privacy)

 

 

Client was stopped for failing to use a turn signal at an intersection. The intersection was peculiar in design and Attorney Reish called a traffic engineer to testify during a suppression hearing about the design of the intersection.  As the entry onto the roadway could be accomplished without turning the steering wheel, the Court agreed with Attorney Reish that the stop of the vehicle was unlawful and all evidence was suppressed.  The Commonwealth had no evidence to bring the case to trial and the client had the matter dismissed and expunged.


Com. v. A.S., 2013

(abbreviated to protect privacy)

 

 

Client was convicted of first degree murder following the death of his second wife in a car accident.  Counsel believes that the verdict was in large part a result of Trial Court permitting the prosecution to argue to the Jury that Defendant's first wife was killed and then an accident was staged.  The case was fought all the way through appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, but unfortunately the verdict could not be overturned.  It was a hard fought case and the client maintains his innocence.


Com. v. P.V., 2014

(abbreviated to protect privacy)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Client was stopped for an expired registration, arrested for a bench warrant, and his vehicle was allegedly "inventory searched."  Upon search of the vehicle, a small amount of marijuana was recovered along withdrug paraphernalia and a couple of firearms.   Upset by what he saw as an unlawful search of the vehicle, Defendant started texting his brother about his frustrations - how he couldn't take being treated this way anymore and stating a desire to harm police and asking his brother to give the arresting trooper a heads up.  Fearing that the client may harm himself or another, the brother called the police to alert them.  Police attempted to arrest Defendant, which lead to a manhunt and his eventual arrest.  Defendant argued that the initial search was unlawful but the Trial Court disagreed.  Defendant took the case to trial arguing that the threats to police were not meant to terrorize them and preserving the suppression issue for an appeal.  The jury was concerned with way defendant was searched, but were instructed that they were not able to consider whether the search was lawful (as the Trial Court had already decided that issue).  The Superior Court reversed and found that Defendant's rights were violated and suppressed the evidence taken during the search.


Com. v. G.S., 2014

(abbreviated to protect privacy)

 

 

 

Client, a reputable local businessman and public figure, was accused of aggravated assault as a result of police receiving a report of an incident of a fight.  While client maintained from the start of the investigation that he was acting in self defense and was assaulted in his own home by his drug addicted brother-in-law,  the state police disagreed and sided with client's soon to be ex-wife and brother-in-law.   The ex-wife and brother-in-law claimed that a brutal fight occurred after which they were held at gunpoint before being permitted to leave. Defendant fought through pretrial motions for a year and half just to get to the point where a fair trial could occur.  The jury promptly acquitted this law-abiding gun carrying citizen of this Commonwealth.


Com. v. R.N., 2016

(abbreviated to protect privacy)

Client was allegedly stopped for a window tint violation while traveling along Interstate 80.  Following the stop, the trooper held client on the side of the road as a result of his nervous behavior.  Client eventually consented to a search and marijuana was discovered.  Attorney Reish argued that the Court must suppress the evidence since defendant was held on the side of the road unlawfully at the time that he allegedly consented to the search.  The Suppression Court agreed and the case was dismissed.