Are gun applications confusing?
Answer: Yes.
For most people, to legally purchase a gun in Pennsylvania, the rules are confusing. To apply to purchase a gun, an applicant must complete a questionnaire. The questionnaire asks whether an applicant has ever been convicted of a crime that could result in prison time greater than one year. Because this question is poorly worded, applicants are often confused.
How are gun applications confusing?
Answer: See below.
For example, if a person was convicted of a misdemeanor and received a sentence of six months to one year of probation. Should this applicant answer “Yes” or “No” on the forms? An applicant may assume that they can answer “No”. Or often, an applicant will ask the gun store employee who then encourages an applicant to answer “No”. But in this scenario, if you were to answer “No”, this would not only be incorrect, but it would also be a serious crime.
If an applicant mistakenly or intentionally lies on a gun application, that is considered fraud in Pennsylvania.
(more…)See the following article on PennLive concerning a woman who falsely accused our client of abuse—in a clear attempt to escape multiple federal charges.
She filed a false Protection from Abuse petition against our client in an effort to cover her tracks and to prevent him from contacting the authorities.
We at ThePhillyLawyers are proud to have incredible in-court and trial experience. Fighting cases is what we do best, but sometimes an opportunity arises to negotiate and settle a matter prior to trial, making the entire process easier. Our own Margeaux Cigainero, Esquire recently had a successful non-trial disposition in the case of Commonwealth v. H.T.N.
Imagine this: The police have been conducting surveillance on a Philadelphia warehouse for weeks, suspecting it may be the center of an illegal operation. One day, they pull over a van associated with the location and in their search discover marijuana. Not an ounce of marijuana. Not a pound of marijuana. 630 pounds of marijuana.
Needless to say, the driver, Henry [not his actual name] could not finish his joy ride. The police arrested him immediately.
In Commonwealth v. H.T.N. our client was facing up to five years of incarceration and a $630,000.00 fine. Attorney Cigainero communicated to Henry all his legal options and worked with him to achieve the best-case scenario. As a husband and father, Henry wanted to be out of custody as soon as possible so he could continue to provide for and be present in the lives of his children.
After our client posted bail, we quickly began negotiations with the District Attorney’s office. Within a few weeks, Henry was released to house arrest and was able to continue working and spending time with his young family. He never saw the inside of a prison. He paid almost no fines, and he was able to live with his family and continue to work. Positive outcomes in the criminal justice system often require creative problem solving, negotiations, and listening to our client’s needs.
Are you in need of a lawyer who will listen to you and act only in your best interests? ThePhillyLawyers wants to hear from you. Our firm has a proven record of success, defending thousands of clients against criminal charges not just in Philadelphia, but in courtrooms all over Pennsylvania. For a free consultation, call or text us today at 215-884-9300.
Philadelphia criminal defense attorney, Margeaux Cigainero, recently won the case of Commonwealth versus J.V. when the Commonwealth withdrew the case because of an illegal search. Learn what constitutes an illegal search and how Cigainero worked with her client to have the criminal charges withdrawn.
What is an illegal search?
In the United States, every citizen is entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy, as outlined in the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. This means that, barring certain exceptions, law enforcement must get written permission, or a search warrant, and establish probable cause to search a person’s body, home, or belongings. An illegal search is a search conducted without a court-issued warrant or sufficient probable cause.
The case:
In the case of Commonwealth versus J.V., James [not his actual name] was observed on his block having a conversation with his neighbor. The police had already watched the neighbor have several hand-to-hand interactions. Assuming the neighbor was engaged in selling narcotics, the police made an arrest. On the neighbor’s person, they discovered both narcotics and cash. And upon searching the neighbor’s home (with consent), the police found additional narcotics, unused packaging, and more money.
It was James’s turn next. At the time of his arrest, the police discovered no contraband on James. However, looking at the address on his ID, they discovered that James lived right next door to his recently arrested neighbor. To “secure the property,” as they described it, the police entered James’s home without a warrant, where they noted alleged narcotics and currency. Law enforcement would use this information in their application for a search warrant and confirmation of probable cause.
Once granted a legal search warrant, police entered James’s home and confirmed the presence of narcotics, paraphernalia, and several firearms. They arrested James.
How we won:
Attorney Margeaux Cigainero met with James to examine the case documents, including the affidavit of probable cause and the search warrant. Upon review, Cigainero realized not only had the officers got her client’s address during an illegal search but that their initial search of his home was conducted without a warrant or sufficient cause. Yes, the officers later acquired a legal search warrant, but it was based on evidence they got illegally.
After Defense Attorney Cigainero notified the Commonwealth and the court of the illegal stops and searches of James and his home, through her motion she moved for the court to suppress all the evidence located in James’s home. The Commonwealth conceded the motion, agreeing to withdraw all the charges. The case against James was dismissed and he will be eligible to have the arrest expunged from his records.
If you believe you’ve been subject to an illegal search or seizure and are now facing criminal charges, we want to hear from you. Our firm has successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges, not just in Philadelphia, but in courtrooms all over Pennsylvania. For a free consultation, call or text us today at 215-884-9300.
The similarities to the recent, tragic shooting of Walter Wallace, Jr. are striking. Both men had a history of battling serious mental illness, both come from loving families, both are good people who made poor decisions in a time of severe, personal mental crisis.
A month earlier, my client was admitted to an inpatient mental health hospital. Anyone with mental health experience knows that a psychiatric hospital only accepts a person inpatient in dire situations. The patient must be an immediate danger to themselves or others, a high burden. Insurance companies take full advantage of this high burden and deny payment and discharge patients at the earliest moment. When payment is declined by insurance, the patient is returned to our streets. This is about money and not anyone’s safety.
They sent this young man home, despite being mentally unstable and volatile. But being mentally unstable and volatile does not keep one in the hospital. The situation, unsurprisingly, deteriorated quickly. He became manic and suicidal. He began causing a scene on his block, and the police and ambulance were called. He was outside banging on the front window of his house, box cutter in hand, when a single, white, female officer responded. She pulled her weapon, and the gentleman charged her. His mother told the officer he was suicidal and urged her to run. She ran, but he overtook her, tackling her to the ground.
What happened next is why no one knows either of their names.
He pulled the box cutter and held it to her throat. The officer unholstered her weapon and shot him one time in the leg. He released his grip and rolled onto his back. The officer immediately applied a tourniquet to his injured leg, saving his life for a second time in ten minutes.
My client and his family are eternally grateful for the quick and compassionate choices this officer made. She is safe; the community is safe, and we are trying to get him the treatment he needs. Charges were filed against him. His case is going through the criminal justice system. Most importantly, both the police officer and my client are safe, healthy, and arguably better for this experience. The difference here is that this officer recognized this young man as a person whose life had value, and she purposely did not kill him. She acted with intelligence and empathy—attributes we hope every police officer are taught.
My hope is our city and society learn lessons from this lesser known story—a story with a much better ending than Mr. Wallace.
A Mexican national living in Pennsylvania, without proper documentation, had a night out on the town with friends. After one too many drinks, he walked home to sleep off his festivities. Unfortunately, he mistakenly went to the wrong door, wrong block, and wrong house. Once there, he was dismayed to find that his key would not work. Cold and ready to be home, he continued fiddling with the door and key. Not to be discouraged, he then tried to open a window. After several attempts, the homeowner woke up—an older lady who had become alarmed by seeing this young determined man at her door and window. After a moment, he sat down and fell asleep on the front stoop.
When police arrived, the woman answered the door, identified the culprit, and he was easily arrested. Despite his efforts to explain his honest mistake in broken English, he was charged with felony first-degree burglary.
After numerous hearings and presentation of a collection of mitigating evidence showing his good character, strong work history, and demonstrating the similarity in the locations as well as the fact that he neither ran, used any tools, or showed other indications of criminal intent, the Commonwealth agreed to withdraw all charges and permit him to enter Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition, otherwise known as ARD.
This result avoided a criminal conviction and avoided the real and serious risk of deportation. Now he is doing community service, paying a small fine, and celebrating the birth of his beautiful baby daughter. Everyone is happy—including his wife, child, and employer—and a just result was achieved for all.
For creative, aggressive legal representation, look no further than ThePhillyLawyers!
The PCRA is a statute that provides some criminal defendants, who have been convicted of a crime and who are still serving a sentence of probation or incarceration, with the ability to challenge their convictions even after an unsuccessful direct appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
PCRA’s are often filed to challenge ineffective assistance of counsel at trial or when an attorney is assisting a client’s decision to plead guilty. Other reasons to file a PCRA are retroactive changes in constitutional law and the discovery of new evidence that would change the outcome at trial or change a decision to enter a plea. The Post-Conviction Relief Act is complicated and there are strict deadlines for filing a PCRA. If you are considering filing a PCRA, it is very important to speak with a knowledgeable attorney.
The Post-Conviction Relief Act underwent changes in 2018. A bill was signed into law that changed the Post-Conviction Relief Act in three important ways:
First, the law extends the deadline for filing a Petition based on newly discovered evidence. Previously, petitioners only had sixty days to file a petition from the day they discovered any new evidence. The change in time-limit ensures that defendants who locate result-changing evidence after their trial, will have a reasonable time-frame to file their petition based on newly discovered evidence.
Second, these changes provide that defendants that file petitions based on new DNA testing do not have to be on probation or in prison at the time that the petition is filed and decided. Previously, the PCRA required that a petitioner be serving a sentence of probation or incarceration when filing the petition and when the petition was ruled on by the court.
Third, the changes in the law allow for DNA testing in some cases even where the defendant pleaded guilty at the time of the original criminal trial. Prior to these changes, a defendant who pleaded guilty could not seek DNA testing even when DNA testing would exonerate them. The new changes in the law eliminate this unfair bar in order to overturn wrongful convictions.
Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court has decided the matter of Commonwealth v. Perfetto. This establishes that Philadelphia prosecutors may not prosecute more serious misdemeanor or felony charges against a defendant who has already been tried in traffic court for offenses arising from the same incident.
For example: If police conducted a traffic stop and charged you with a DUI and you received traffic tickets and resolve your traffic tickets, you cannot be prosecuted for the DUI. In Philadelphia, this happens often because traffic court cases usually go to trial more quickly than criminal trials. The Supreme Court ruled that, as a matter of fundamental fairness, prosecutors should not be allowed to charge a defendant in multiple different courts for the same conduct. This decision could result in many cases being dismissed.
If you have a matter where you received a traffic violation in addition to misdemeanor or felony charges make sure you contact ThePhillyLawyers for a consultation and have the support of a team of attorneys that know the correct motions to file to win your case.
