"TRIAL OF THE CENTURY" RECAP

As promised, a recap of the big Disorderly Conduct summary appeal "Trial of the Century" which was heard yesterday in front of Judge Thomas Gavin as part of his Miscellaneous Case list...

At around 11:35, the summary appeal of Commonwealth vs. Joseph Norley (CP-15-SA-0000138-2007) commenced after nearly two hours of addressing other matters before the court, mostly violations of probation/parole, other summary appeals, and a civil hearing that started at 09:00 and extended well past the scheduled 09:30 call of the Miscellaneous List. The case was heard in front of Judge Knapp on February 23, where Norley was found guilty of one count of Disorderly Conduct (15-1-04, NT-0001774-06).

On October 22, 2006 at around 02:54, Cpl. Pam Baumann and Ofc. Greg Cugino were on bike patrol in the southeast college neighborhood when dispatch reported a disturbance at South Walnut and Magnolia Streets. Upon arrival, Norley told the officers that three individuals were harassing him and making threats to kill him and rape his wife. Norley claimed that one of the actors had taken a photo of him using a cell phone camera and was cursing him out. Norley had testified that earlier in the night, some subjects had caused damage to a parked vehicle and was concerned that further incidents in the area would incite violence. He claimed he notified police of the damaged vehicle after officers cleared a noise disturbance at a nearby house but were "to busy to attend to" the particular matter.

Cpl. Baumann testified that when she and Ofc. Cugino arrived on scene in regards to the complaint, Norley pointed out three individuals he suspected were involved in making the threats. The officers then followed the subjects down Walnut and onto Union Street before stopping them on the 300 block of Sharon Alley. Before the officers went after the actors, Cpl. Baumann testified that she told Norley to stay where he was and that they would handle the situation.

Norley then followed the officers to Sharon Alley, observing the stop from Sharon Alley and Union Street. As the officers were conducting their investigation, Norley yelled several times "That's them. I want them arrested" in a loud voice from around 100-to-120 feet away. Cpl. Baumann testified that she warned Norley to leave the scene at least 4-to-5 times; Ofc. Cugino testified the had warned Norley twice himself. The yelling continued for nearly two minutes before Cpl. Baumann warned Norley one last time that if he didn't leave, he would be cited for Disorderly Conduct. After failing to heed the warnings, Cpl. Baumann informed Norley that he would be recieve a citation in the mail, to which Norley said "That's just f***ing great!"

During the ped stop on Sharon Alley, both officers testified that Norley's actions were interfering with their ability to conduct the investigation. During his testimony, Norley claimed that the fact he was only trying to identify the subjects from the initial allegations of threats and reiterated that he was about 100 feet away from the officers during the entire incident.

The Commonwealth and defense counsel Sam Streeton jointly presented into evidence five 9-1-1 calls placed to WCPD dispatchers Paul Widmayer and Christopher Jones on the night in question. On the first two calls regarding the incident Norley was complaing about, some verbal interaction between an unknown number of actors and Norley was noticable during the call. The third call related to the incident in which one of the subjects allegedly took the photo of Norley; the fourth call was after Cpl. Baumann informed Norley that the citation would be issued, in which he requsted to speak to a supervisor; the final call was when Norley made mention of the threats made towards his wife and on that call, he threatened to go down to borough hall and call the mayor and police chief.

During arguements, Stretton presented case law that supported Norley's contention that his actions did not constitute a violation of the Disorderly Conduct statute in that his purpose to assist the police in identifying the supects was indeed a legitimate purpose. The Commonwealth countered that Norley's actions served no legitimate purpose and created a risk to the officers due to his allegedly "tumultuous behavior."

After Nathanial Smith, a neighbor of Norley's, was presented as a charater witness, Judge Gavin announced that he would need time to review the evidence and testimony and that a verdict would be handed down tomorrow. The Commonwealth was given until tomorrow to present relevant case law for the court's consideration. Stretton waived his client's right to be present for the veridct. And, that should have been the end of it except for the verdict...

Except that a representative of the bail agency, who was scheduled to appear in front of Judge Gavin on an unrelated matter, informed the court that Norley had a bench warrant issued by Judge Bruno. The warrant was for a particularly heinous offense that certainly had to be addressed at once and that Norley would have to be arrested and brought before Judge Bruno.

The offense? An parking ticket for "overtime parking meter" with a $87.21 fine (15-1-01, TR-00004829-07). Seriously...

For the next 10-15 minutes, there seemed to be confusion as to whether the Sheriff's Office would be responsible for confirming the warrant and taking Norley to District Court or if WCPD would address the matter. At least 4 deputies made their way to the hallway outside of Courtroom #5, prepared to take Norley into custody. Meanwhile, Cpl. Baumann made the decision to contact WCPD dispatch to send an officer over to the courthouse and let WCPD take care of the issue. Ultimately, and almost ironically, Ofc. Cugino returned to the Courthouse to serve the warrant and take Norley to Judge Bruno's court to address the ticket. According to court records, Norley paid the fine plus $27.50 in additional court costs...

In short there are several ways to look at this entire episode:

For starters, it was bad enough that two WCPD officers, one of whom was on scheduled patrol duty, were tied up in court due to circumstances out of their control, namely the sluggish court management and scheduling. To wit, why would Court Administration schedule a civil hearing on a day when several summary appeals and violations of probation were scheduled? I'm sure that the civil hearing could've come up at the last minute, but still...
Why would the Commonwealth go full throttle in prosecuting this case when I've seen a couple of non-jury criminal trials resolved in less time than this appeal took (it took a total of an hour-and-a-half, not counting the lunch recess, to run the trial). When the summary trial was held in front of Judge Knapp, it was scheduled right in the middle of a Criminal Day, which, according to some accounts, completely slowed down the entire session even worse than usual; considering there are days in which those sessions are slow and erratic to being with, it must have really been a mess...
For that matter, why would Norley seek to proceed with an appeal with such zealousness, other than what could be explained as a "matter of principle." Norley's outspokeness about the misbehavior of college students - alleged and proven - in the South Walnut Street neighborhood is legendary, particularly the repeated complaints made in front of Borough Council over the years. The irony is that the Commonwealth essentially charged Norley for the same behavior that he has been combating for years...
And finally, there's the little issue over the bench warrant for the parking ticket. Granted, it would've been in Norley's best interest to address that matter sooner before it went to warrant, however here's an interesting paradox that I've noticed over the past couple years. Some constables in the county are notorious for first confirming an active traffic or non-traffic summary warrant - or in the case of some defendants multiple warrants - and simply directing them to court. One such defendant reportedly had no fewer than 10 outstanding summary bench warrants after a traffic stop by a WCPD officer, only to have the constables simply request the officer direct the defendant to court. Now, to be fair, the warrant could've been confirmed directly by the court and the judge could've requested that Norley be brought in right away. But still, to drag someone off in handcuffs after a very long and stressful day in court over a parking ticket that was less than $100 borders on overkill. Not to mention the fact that had the little turf war between the Sheriff's Office and the WCPD over how to handle the matter. (Now if it was a warrant for a criminal case, that's another story.)

In any event, a recap of some of the other cases (assuming that I stop procrastinating and get around to posting those cases here) will be posted by the end of the week. Despite what looked like a promising week full of pleas and possible trials, a lot of the matters of interest were continued to the next trial terms. Still, I'll post what I can which isn't as much as I'd have liked, but that's the quirk of the court system, I guess...