The Zuckerman Law Firm is pleased to announce that our client was found not guilty of Simple Assault after a non-jury trial in Allegheny County. To protect the confidentiality of the parties involved, names and certain case details will be excluded.
Through testimony, public records and exhibits, the following was presented: In the summer of 2019, the victim and his wife were going through a divorce. The wife had begun dating the firm’s client, and the client had taken his new girlfriend and her children for an evening out. Prior to leaving, the victim and his wife had exchanged messages about their plans for the evening, where the wife made it clear that she was going to be taking her kids with her to see the client. In response, the victim made it clear that he did not want his children around the client, and told his wife he would arrive at their location despite not being invited. Approximately 2-3 hours later, the victim arrived at their location, hid behind bushes, and relayed his observations to a friend on the phone.
About 20 minutes later, the victim and client had a verbal argument, whereby the victim claimed that he was sucker-punched in the back of the head. However, the client told police officers that the victim repeatedly threatened him, and had threatened to cause harm to his own estranged wife. Furthermore, the victim threatened to “end him” and made a reaching motion towards his pocket, leading our client to believe he was grabbing a gun. The client rapidly grabbed the victim’s head in self-defense, releasing his head when discovering that he did not have a gun in his hand. The defense argued that at the time the client grabbed the victim’s head, the client had a reasonable belief that he was in danger of bodily harm.
Evidence presented at trial undermined the credibility of the victim. First, the victim told police that he had just left work, went to visit his wife and kids, and did not know the the client would be present. These claims were clearly contradicted by text messages and the victim’s own prior testimony. Second, testimony revealed that the wife had been physically abused in the past by the victim, and that she communicated this information to the client. Being aware of these violent tendencies, the client believed that the victim was going to harm him at the time he acted in self-defense. Third, although the victim claimed he did not want a confrontation, his actions that day demonstrated otherwise, since: (1) he verbally threatened the client (2) he threatened to give evidence to the client’s wife to use in their divorce and (3) he lowered a shoulder into the client’s chest/torso area when entering a bus stop. Fourth, there were pending divorce claims in family court, establishing a potential motive for the victim to testify adversely against the client, and in a manner that minimized his involvement in the incident.
Given the lack of serious injury and the client’s lack of a criminal record, this should have been a case that resolved at the magistrate level or through the ARD diversionary program. However, the victim took a completely unreasonable stance about the matter, as he was seeking revenge against the man who his wife dated. As a result, the case went to trial.
After hearing the evidence, the Court rendered a not guilty verdict as to the count of Simple Assault, and found the client guilty of a summary offense for harassment, imposing fines and a 90-day non-reporting probationary period. The client will become eligible to expunge the Simple Assault charge from his criminal record.
This case demonstrates how a single witness with dubious credibility can impact how a case proceeds through the system. Thankfully, through careful preparation, the firm was able to tell the other side of the story, leading to the correct outcome.
