Three preliminary hearings involving four defendants, including one involving the father of the Willistown teenager in the center of a controversial shooting case that was recently adjudicated in Common Pleas Court, highlighted a busy and painfully slow day at 15-1-04's Criminal Day with 19 cases on today's docket. Of the remaining 15 cases, 3 defendants waived their preliminary hearings, 7 cases were continued, 3 defendant saw criminal charges withdrawn after complying with summary disposition agreements, and 2 defendants failed to appear for court and had bench warrants issued against them.
The first hearing involved Sean O'Neill, Sr., who faced three counts of Possession of Offensive Weapons in a case filed by the Pennsylvania State Police/Media (apparently, PSP/Media assumed the investigation based on the fact that the initial shooting involing O'Neill's son was originally dispatched in Edgmont, Delaware County even though it was later determined the incident occured in Willistown, Chester County). Tpr. Thomas Gilhool testified that during a search of O'Neill's property, he recovered two rifles and a device alleged to be a silencer, which were later turned over to the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms for analysis. Tpr. Gilhool testified that the weapons had threads on the end that could potentially accept a silencer or similar device. He also testified that the weapons and device were never tested by the State Police. The ATF testing of the rifles determined the sound level of those weapons without the device was 149.90 decibles; the sound level with the device was 133.34 decibles, which Tpr. Gilhool stated was the only testing done on the weapons. Defense attorney Vincent DiFabio argued that the alleged device recovered by PSP did not fall under the specific definition under Section 908 of the Crimes Code:
(a) Offense defined.--A person commits a misdemeanor of the first degree if, except as authorized by law, he makes repairs, sells, or otherwise deals in, uses, or possesses any offensive weapon.
...
(c) Definition.--As used in this section, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this subsection:
"Firearm."
Any weapon which is designed to or may readily be converted to expel any projectile by the action of an explosive or the frame or receiver of any such weapon.
"Offensive weapons."
Any bomb, grenade, machine gun, sawed-off shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches, firearm specially made or specially adapted for concealment or silent discharge ... or other implement for the infliction of serious bodily injury which serves no common lawful purpose.
DiFabio argued that the ATF analysis was performed under the federal guidelines, which compared to the state statute reads as follows:
(24) The terms "firearm silencer" and "firearm muffler" mean any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication. (18 US Sec. 921)
DiFabio noted that based on the ATF report which noted a "minimal reduction" in noise as opposed to the "silent dischrage" burden as defined under Section 908, the Commonwealth did not meet the prima facie case on the charges and requested the case be dismissed.
The Commonwealth argued that there is no known case law that defined "silent discharge" for the purposes of the definition under 908, however the rifle was still "specially adapted" under the definiation in 908 and that this was the type of question that should be addressed by a jury.
Despite the relative weakness of the Commonwealth's case, Judge Knapp ordered O'Neill held for trial on the three counts alleged by the Commonwealth; he remains free on his own recognizance (15-2-05, CR-0000097-07). Somehow, I doubt there will be a conviction by a jury on these particular counts, particularly when, at least in my opinion, a 10 percent noise reduction does not really constitute silence at least under my reading of the statutes. But, then again, I don't have a law degree, so what do I know?
In the second hearing of the day, two men were charged with breaking into an apartment and assaulting two occupants over a dispute involing money and a dog bite. Edwin Allen Hayes, 20, of Thorndale and Lawrence Lock Pierce IV, 28, of Coatesville, were co-defendants in an alleged home invasion this past summer. On July 23 at 01:30, the victim, his girlfriend, his brother, and his brother's friend were at thier residence on the 100 block of East Barnard Street when Pierce, Hayes, and two other men (who have not been identified or charges to this point) allegedly broke down the door and stormed into the 3rd floor apartment.
Pierce, who was identified as the person who allegedly kicked the door in, then began demanding money from the victim. At that point, the victim told his brother to call police; Pierce then began to punch the friend of the victim's brother as he was calling 9-1-1. Pierce then allegedly struck the male victim in the face as two other men restrained the victim as the assault was occuring. The victim had indicated that he was unaware that anyone had come up the stairs prior to the break-in. The victim suspected that Pierce was attempting to get money from the defendant for a cable bill that was under Pierce's girlfriend's name; there had been a previous dispute after Pierce's girlfriend's pit bull bit the victim in the finger, resulting in nearly $15,000 of unpaid medical expenses, and that the victim had withheld his portion of the cable bill in response.
The victim's girlfriend had attempted to intervene on the victim's behalf; Pierce allegedly struck her in the face and pushed her against the sofa in the apartment. The female indicated that she had no opportunity to defend herself in the assault. While Hayes did not participate in the actual assault, he allegedly threatened to return with a gun if anyone attempted to call police. The actors left the location when other residents of the building said that police had arrived on scene. Both the male victim and his girlfriend were treated at Paoli Memorial Hospital for their injuries.
Pierce's attorney offered no arguement, however Hayes' attorney argued that charges against his client should be dismissed as he was not actively involved in the incident. The Commonwealth responded that the fact that Hayes was in the apartment at the time of the assault and had allegedly made the threat to get a gun made his as responsible for his role in the incident as Pierce.
Judge Knapp ordered Pierce held on four counts of Simple Assault, two counts each of Terroristic Threats and Recklessly Endangering Another Person and eight Conspiracy counts (15-1-04, CR-0000240-07); Pierce remains free on $20,000 bail, however he is currently on a two-year probation period for a 2006 guilty plea in front of Judge Howard F. Riley, Jr. on a DUI charge filed by Ofc. James Kiley of the Downingtown Police (CP-15-CR-0000690-2006). Hayes was held for trial on the same charges and remains free on $10,000 bail (15-1-04, CR-0000237-07)...
The final hearing of the day involved a domestic dispute between a woman and her ex-boyfriend. Elvis Negron, 34, of West Chester, was charged with Harassment, Simple Assault, Resisting Arrest, and Disorderly Conduct as a result of the confrontation. On August 23 at 21:15, the victim testified that she and her three daughters had gone out to dinner when Negron allegedly called her and wanted to get back together with her. When the victim refused, Negron allegedly said that he would be waiting for her at her South Matlack Street apartment.
When the victim and her children returned home, Negron allegedly confronted her, pushing her several times in the chest while telling the children not to trust their mother. At least one of the daughters attempted to intervene to protect her mom. At that point, the victim attempted to call 9-1-1, however Negron allegedly broke the phone. The victim then yelled out for help; a neighbor then rendered aid to the victim, calling 9-1-1 on her behalf. As the victim was giving her location to 9-1-1, Negron allegedly grabbed the phone from her.
Shortly thereafter, Ofc. Aaron Davis arrived on location and was directed to the incident by the good samaritan neighbor. He confronted Negron after seeing him arguing with the victim near the top of the stairs and ordered him to come downstairs. As he was walking downstairs, Negron allegedly turned around and continued yelling at the victim. As Ofc. Davis was about to place Negron into handcuffs, the defendant allegedly began grabbing at the officer; Ofc. Davis then requested back-up units to respond and ordered Negron to stop resisting arrest on several occasions.
As Negron was being arrested, he allegedly began flailing around and at one point, grabbed at Ofc. Davis' duty belt. Negron was eventually forced to the ground until Ofc. A.J. McCarthy and David Hammond arrived on scene to assist in placing Negron into custody. As a result of the fight, Ofc. Davis suffered a laceration to the left wrist which kept him off the street for the remainder of his tour; he was treated for his injury at Chester Count Hospital.
Negron was held for trial on all counts, including two counts of Harassment and one count each of Simple Assault (for Ofc. Davis' injuries), Resisting Arrest, and Disorderly Conduct. He remains free on $2,500 bail, which seems rather low considering the allegations against Negron. He was ordered not to have any contact with the victim or her children (15-1-04, CR-0000287-07).
Meanwhile, two defendants failed to appear for court and had bench warrants issued for their arrest:
Kelli Andersen, 21, of Philadelphia, was scheduled for a preliminary hearing on charges of DUI in a complaint filed by Cpl. Pam Baumann. Having failed to respond or appear for her hearing, Judge Knapp issued a bench warrant for her arrest (15-1-04, CR-0000274-07).
Kevin M. Corr, 20, of Moorestown, N.J., was arraigned last week on drug related charges on Underage Drinking in a complaint that was also filed by Cpl. Baumann. A bench warrant has been issued for Corr (confirmed yesterday by District Court staff), so it appears very likely that his $1.00 nominal bail had been forfeited (15-1-04, CR-0000315-07).
The recaps from the two Common Pleas court Criminal Terms concluded last week will be posted sometime next week due to delays on my end in making the request for records; be assured that the recaps will certainly be worth the wait once I get to review the records...
No comments:
Post a Comment