If you visited the KeyBank Pavilion and were cited with a summary, non-traffic offense for underage drinking, public drunkenness or disorderly conduct, learn more about your situation.Read More
A ZLF client was charged with two separate cases in Indiana County, Pennsylvania. The first case was for Drug Possession. The second case was for Contraband and Drug Possession. Essentially, the client was arrested for the first case and notified members of law enforcement that narcotics were located in a pant pocket. Thereafter, the client was transported to the jail where additional narcotics were found in the same pant pocket. As a result of the second search that occurred in the jail, the client was charged with Contraband, a 2nd Degree Felony, and Drug Possession, a 1st-Degree Misdemeanor. Both offenses carried a maximum sentence of up to 13 years in jail.
At the preliminary hearing, the firm was successfully able to convince the District Attorney’s office that the client should have never been charged with Contraband in the first place, as there was no evidence to establish that drugs were being smuggled into the county jail. Specifically, had law enforcement thoroughly searched the client during the initial arrest, no drugs would have been found at the county jail. As a result, all charges at the second case were withdrawn, allowing the client to avoid a felony conviction without the time and expense of trial.
TIPS FOR HIRING A PITTSBURGH CRIMINAL ATTORNEY & PITTSBURGH DUI ATTORNEY
If you’re facing criminal or DUI charges in Pittsburgh and Western Pennsylvania, you may not know where to turn for help. You know you need to hire a Pittsburgh Criminal Attorney or Pittsburgh DUI Attorney to represent you, but may have concerns about what to ask and who to trust. This article is designed to provide some insight on things you should consider before hiring a local criminal defense attorney to represent you.
Does the Attorney have experience handling similar cases in the county where I am charged?
A critically important factor in the decision on hiring a criminal defense attorney is making sure that the attorney you choose has the right experience to handle your case. You should inquire with any attorney about whether or not they’ve handled cases that are similar to yours in the county where you are charged with a crime. The question you should be asking isn’t “How long have you been practicing law?” but “Do you have experience handling this type of case in the county where I’m charged?”
However, don’t assume automatically that you need to hire a local county attorney to handle your case. Many Pittsburgh based attorneys have significant experience representing clients charged with crimes in other counties. Specifically, the Zuckerman Law Firm has represented clients all over Western Pennsylvania, including Allegheny, Beaver, Butler, Cambria, Fayette, Green, Indiana, Mercer, Washington and Westmoreland Counties.
What’s your first impression? How comfortable are you in dealing with the attorney?
Every day, we make decisions about other people based upon first impressions and our degree of comfort in dealing with others. Hiring an attorney should be no different. Don’t abandon your intuition. If you have consulted with and feel comfortable with a particular Pittsburgh criminal attorney, then you should trust your gut feeling about the lawyer. Likewise, if a particular attorney rubbed you the wrong way, then trust that feeling as well.
Be prepared to answer difficult questions in a private location where nobody else can overhear your conversation.
In discussing your case with a Pittsburgh criminal defense attorney, you should be prepared to answer difficult and uncomfortable questions about your case in a location where nobody else can overhear your end of the conversation. Although you may want friends, spouses or family members to overhear the conversation, ensuring that your conversation is not overheard by others will help protect the attorney-client privilege.
Check online reviews but don’t rely exclusively upon them.
Checking online reviews can be a helpful tool in making a decision about what attorney to hire. You may be able to read reviews about the attorney you’re looking to hire on Google, Avvo, Facebook, Super Lawyers, and related websites.
However, you should be cautious about your reliance upon online reviews for a few reasons. First, while there is no direct evidence that this is occurring in the Pittsburgh market, there are 3rd party marketing companies that will write fake positive and negative reviews for pay. Second, you should bear in mind that it is incredibly difficult to get anyone to write a review about a criminal defense practice, as most people don’t want their names associated on the internet with a criminal defense lawyer for obvious reasons. Additionally, many of the negative reviews out there are from disgruntled, chronically dissatisfied individuals whose temperament and expectations are not aligned with reality.
At the Zuckerman Law Firm, we value our word of mouth referrals and positive online presence. We manage our own sites and do not contract with 3rd party online marketing companies. We take pride in the legitimate, positive reviews that our firm has received from clients throughout Pittsburgh and Western Pennsylvania.
Be very skeptical of promises or guarantees regarding the outcome of your case.
Unfortunately, there are lawyers in the area who will brag or make promises or guarantees about the outcome of your case to earn your business. You should be skeptical of any lawyer who promises you an outcome for several reasons. First, it’s arguably a violation of the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct as a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services.
Secondly, when it comes to the criminal justice system, there are no guarantees regarding the outcome of any case. Every case is different, and there are a wide variety of factors that go into a possible case resolution, such as: the individual facts of the case, the interests of the involved parties, prosecutorial discretion, the individual’s prior criminal record, the assigned judge’s tendencies, etc.
However, it is 100% appropriate for an attorney to set forth goals or predictions regarding the potential outcome of your case based upon the attorney’s past experience, so long as the lawyer makes clear that there are no promises or guarantees regarding the outcome.
Don’t overvalue relationships with the District Attorney’s Office, Judge or arresting Police Officer.
One of the questions you may have is how well the criminal defense attorney knows the assigned DA, Judge or arresting police officer on your case. It is a fair question to ask, but you should be skeptical if the attorney suggests that he can get you a favorable outcome because he or she knows someone involved with the case.
For example, it is appropriate for an attorney to state that he or she has practiced in front of all of the judges or dealt with all of the Assistant DAs assigned to Pittsburgh Municipal Court, and is therefore comfortable litigating cases in that court. However, if an attorney promises to get you off the hook because he knows the judge or DA, this is an unethical promise that should cause you to think twice about hiring them.
Who will be handling my case?
When you go to the dentist for a cleaning and checkup, does the dentist fully clean your teeth? Typically not. A well-trained dental hygienist discusses with you any issues you’re having with your teeth, conducts x-rays, cleans your teeth and polishes them. Thereafter, the dentist will come to examine your teeth and do some minor touch up work before discharging you.
Similarly, there is nothing wrong with delegating a case assignment to an associate or subordinate attorney if the legal matter falls within their experience level and their work is supervised by a partner. The Zuckerman Law Firm typically honors requests for Managing Attorney Dave Zuckerman to personally handle cases. However, with cases that are delegated to an associate, Attorney Zuckerman coordinates with the associate to discuss goals and strategies, and still remains accessible to discuss the case directly with clients.
However, not all firms operate in such a manner. At some firms, the partner will delegate your case and never speak with you again. Additionally, some firms will contract with 3rd party attorneys who do not work for the firm, are not generally familiar with the case, and will often be hired on a last-minute basis.
If you are hiring an attorney or law firm, you should make sure that you have the ability to contact both the partner and associate as needed.
Who will be answering my phone calls?
This is a legitimate question for you to ask any attorney or law firm in the area. Many criminal defense attorneys and law firms in the Pittsburgh area have their calls screened by paralegals or third-party answering services. This may leave clients frustrated by an inability to reach their attorney during critical times.
At the Zuckerman Law Firm, your phone calls are never screened by paralegals, secretaries or third-party answering services. As a client of ZLF, you will receive the direct work cell phone number and email addresses for our attorneys. When we’re able to talk, we will answer, or you’ll be able to leave messages on our personal voicemails.
Am I being charged for the whole case up front, or just the preliminary hearing?
Last year, a client retained the firm to handle a 1st-Degree Misdemeanor case, where there was a strong likelihood that the case could be resolved at the preliminary hearing. The client proceeded to ask why our firm’s rate was so much lower than other firms in the area. The reason - other firms were charging a “full case rate” for a matter that likely did not require the level of work needed to handle the matter at the higher court. The case resolved with a complete dismissal at the preliminary hearing, saving the client hundreds if not thousands on representation.
At the Zuckerman Law Firm, we typically quote flat-fee rates for the preliminary hearing up front, with a final fee due for any future court proceedings. This can work to the benefit of the client, as clients end up paying less for cases that resolve at the preliminary hearing phase of prosecution.
Can I afford to hire a private criminal attorney in Pittsburgh?
A patient is going to pay his dentist more for a root canal than a routine cleaning. The same principle applies for criminal defense. The cost associated with hiring a private criminal attorney in Pittsburgh often depends upon the severity of the charges, the client’s specific needs and the required amount of work involved in defending the case.
A person who wants a jury trial is almost always going to pay a higher rate than someone who wants a non-jury trial or plea. Similarly, a person charged with homicide or sexual assault is likely going to pay a higher fee than someone charged with a DUI or theft case. Likewise, you will have to pay more if an expert witness or private investigator is needed to help defend the case.
You should have a realistic assessment about your ability to pay legal fees. If you cannot afford to hire a private criminal attorney, you should contact the Public Defender’s Office in the county where you are charged to learn more about how to apply for court-appointed counsel.
SEE IF THE ZUCKERMAN LAW FIRM IS THE RIGHT CHOICE FOR YOU
If you are facing criminal, DUI or traffic charges in Pittsburgh and Western Pennsylvania, contact the Zuckerman Law Firm today at 412-447-5580 for a free, confidential telephone consultation. Attorney Dave Zuckerman has 10 years of experience in the criminal justice system, as a former prosecutor, law clerk and as a private criminal defense attorney.
The Zuckerman Law Firm represented a client facing 18 total counts for Insurance Fraud, Acquisition of a Controlled Substance by Misrepresentation, Forgery and Theft by Deception in Armstrong County. The information listed in this article is a matter of public record, and does not include the disclosure of confidential information.
The client stood accused of writing fake prescription medications over a span of several years from a physician’s office to support a drug addiction. Specifically, full confessions were made by the Defendant to the employer and members of law enforcement. Due to the high number of Schedule II controlled substances acquired, the client’s Offense Gravity Score was increased to a 13, carry a range of guideline sentences from 5-10 years, up to 6.5-13 years.
Pursuant to lengthy negotiations that occurred between the firm and Attorney General’s Office, an agreement was reached where the prosecution agreed to reduce the Offense Gravity Score from a 13 down to a 5 in return for a guilty plea to Acquisition of a Controlled Substance by Misrepresentation and Insurance Fraud. The agreement was accepted, but sentencing was left to the discretion of the Court. The guideline range sentence for the reduced OGS still carried anywhere from probation to 9-18 months in the county jail.
Prior to sentencing, the firm prepared and filed a detailed memorandum explaining the client’s rehabilitative efforts in a request for probation. At sentencing, the Court agreed that the client deserved a probationary sentence, and imposed a 2 year period of probation. This case serves as an important example as to why humanizing your client with both prosecutors and the court can be an effective tool in achieving justice.
Our firm is pleased to announce that our clients were found not guilty of Racing on Highways offenses in Armstrong County, Pennsylvania. This verdict saved both clients from incurring a mandatory 6-month driver’s license suspension.
A husband and wife couple stood accused of Racing on Highways after being lined up in adjacent lanes along a local highway. Upon the traffic light turning green, the citing officer claimed to have heard tires squealing and saw both vehicles accelerate to a point approximately 1/10th of a mile down the road, before one vehicle slowed and the other continued. The officer then proceeded to stop both vehicle charging the couple with Racing on Highways. One driver was also charged with exceeding speed limits in excess of 31mph, which carries a mandatory 15-day license suspension.
At the summary trial, the testimony of both clients was presented, establishing that neither party was engaged in a drag race as required by the statute. The court ultimately found the clients not guilty of this offense. However, the court found one driver guilty of speeding below 31mph, eliminating the 15-day suspension, and the other guilty of an inspection violation, carrying a fine only.
Our firm is pleased to announce the decision made by prosecutors to fully withdraw felony Theft and misdemeanor Stalking and Harassment against a client who was falsely accused of domestic violence. The client faced a total of 6 separate legal actions as a result of unfounded allegations: 2 criminal cases, 1 PFA, and 3 ICC complaints. This blog post is being made with the client’s direct consent.
Upon learning that our client was in a relationship with another woman, his ex-girlfriend filed for a PFA, and accused him of stealing his own vehicle, which was titled in his ex’s name to lower insurance costs.
After posting bond on the theft case, his ex-girlfriend subsequently accused him of sending threatening text messages to her on three separate occasions. Police ultimately filed three separate indirect criminal contempt complaints (ICC) against the client without ever securing the alleged text messages as evidence, forcing him to pay thousands of dollars to bail bondsmen to secure his release. Police thereafter charged him with Stalking and Harassment.
Social media evidence sent by the ex-girlfriend to the client ultimately cleared his name. At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing on the theft charges, the ex-girlfriend sent a message to the client using her social media account, threatening to ruin his life if he would not take her back.
Thankfully, the client followed our advice for handling domestic violence allegations by preserving a copy of the message and providing it to legal counsel. This message in conjunction with other exculpatory text messages were reviewed with prosecuting attorneys, who made the responsible decision to withdraw all of his criminal charges. Additionally, all PFAs and ICC violations were withdrawn in family court.
Although victorious in a court of law, this came at a great cost to the client, who spent thousands of dollars in bond money and attorney’s fees to clear his name.
In April of 2018, the PA State Senate voted 45-4 to approve Senate Bill 961, which would change the PA Motor Vehicle Code under Title 75 to increase penalties for DUI offenders, and those who drive on suspended licenses. Although this bill is still awaiting approval in the House, it is strongly anticipated that it will pass and be signed into law. This article is designed to highlight some of the differences in penalties between current Pennsylvania law and the law if SB 961 is approved.
Driving on a DUI Suspended or Revoked License
The biggest impact of this law will be on the treatment of those who drive on suspended licenses. Currently, a person who drives on a DUI suspended license who is not a habitual offender faces a summary offense punishable with a mandatory minimum sentence of 60 days of incarceration and a $500 fine, regardless of the number of prior convictions.
Since the DUI Suspended License cases are filed as summary offenses, typically District Attorneys offices are not involved in proceedings until the Summary Appeals phase, which allows significant latitude to negotiate pleas before the Magisterial District Courts. That will soon change, as the following modifications would apply:
- Second Conviction for 75 Pa.C.S. 1543(b): Grading remains a summary offense carrying a mandatory 90 day jail sentence and a $1000 fine. This change increases the mandatory minimum sentence by 30 days and adds $500 to the total fine.
- Third or Subsequent Conviction for 75 Pa.C.S. 1543(b): Increases the grading to a 3rd Degree Misdemeanor with a mandatory minimum jail sentence of 6 months in jail and a mandatory $2,500 fine. This modification turns the violation into a criminal matter, increases the mandatory minimum sentence by 4 months, and the mandatory fine by $2,000.
The current DUI Penalties can be found here. Under current Pennsylvania Law, the highest graded offense that an offender will face is a 1st Degree Misdemeanor punishable by a maximum sentence of 5 years. Under SB 961, an offender will be charged with a 3rd Degree Felony punishable by a maximum sentence of 7 years if:
- It is the offender's 4th DUI Offense;
- It is the offender's 3rd DUI Offense if charged with a Highest Tier DUI for Drugs, having a BAC exceeding a .16%, refusing a breath test, or refusing a blood draw if requested pursuant to a warrant, court order, or other constitutional basis; or
- The offender has a prior Homicide by Vehicle While DUI conviction.
It does not appear that SB 961 impacts the mandatory minimum jail sentences applicable to 3rd and 4th offenses, but merely modifies the grading from an M1 to an F3.
Homicide by Vehicle while DUI and Non-DUI
Current law treats a Homicide by Vehicle While DUI offense as a 2nd Degree Felony with a mandatory minimum prison sentence of 3 years. Under SB 961, for those with one prior DUI (includes convictions, acceptance of ARD, acceptance of a consent decree, or juvenile adjudication), the grading of the offense will be enhanced to a 1st Degree Felony with a mandatory minimum prison sentence of 5 years. If the offender had two or more prior DUI offenses (includes convictions, acceptance of ARD, acceptance of a consent decree, or juvenile adjudication), the offender faces a mandatory minimum sentence of 7 years.
For a Homicide By Vehicle offense not involving DUI, the court may, but is not required to, sentence an offender who is convicted of HBV and a Driving Without a License under Section 1501 or Driving on a Suspended License under Section 1543 to an additional 5 years of incarceration. The bill also calls for sentencing guideline enhancements when a person operated their vehicle without a license.
Aggravated Assault by Vehicle While DUI and non-DUI
Whether it's an Aggravated Assault by Vehicle While DUI under Section 3735.1 or an Aggravated Assault by Vehicle under Section 3732.1, the court may, but is not required to, sentence an offender who is also convicted of Driving Without a License under Section 1501 or Driving on a Suspended License under Section 1543 to an additional 2 years of incarceration. The bill also calls for sentencing guideline enhancements when a person operated their vehicle without a license.
Accident Involving Death or Injury While Not Properly Licensed
Under current law, Section 3742.1 of the Vehicle Code only punishes an individual who is not properly licensed and causes an accident resulting in injury or death to another. If the accident causes serious bodily injury or death, the offense is graded as a 3rd Degree Felony. All other injuries qualify for a 2nd Degree Misdemeanor grading.
However, SB 961 would modify the law to punish unlicensed drivers who both cause accidents, and those who are involved in accidents through no fault of their own. If a driver who is unlicensed is involved in an accident, and the driver didn't cause the accident, the driver will now be charged with a 3rd Degree Misdemeanor if anyone else involved suffered serious bodily injury, or a 2nd Degree Misdemeanor if anyone died as a result of the accident. Put simply - an unlucky unlicensed driver who is involved in an accident through no fault of their own will now face criminal charges if someone was injured.
The media focus on this law deals with the addition of felony DUI charges and enhanced mandatory penalties for Homicide by Vehicle offenders. However, the most significantly impacted segment of society will be those whose licenses are suspended because they cannot afford to pay DUI court costs. These individuals will continue to see their fines and penalties increase substantially if this bill is signed into law.
DUI Refusal penalties are some of the harshest penalties under Pennsylvania law. A DUI Refusal charge is a shorthand term for a DUI General Impairment with Refusal offense. In these cases, the Commonwealth must prove that the accused drove, operated or exercised physical control over the movement of a vehicle after imbibing a sufficient amount of alcohol to render the accused incapable of safe driving. To seek the increased DUI penalties for refusing a chemical test, the Commonwealth must also prove that the defendant refused to provide the requested blood or breath sample.
In addition to the mandatory 12 or 18 month civil license suspensions, Sections 3803 and 3804 of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code treat DUI Refusals as Highest Tier offenses, the same as if your BAC exceeded a .16%. While a first offense DUI General Impairment offense carries no mandatory jail time, a first offense DUI Refusal carries a 72 hour mandatory minimum jail sentence. A second offense DUI General Impairment is an ungraded misdemeanor which carries a 5 day mandatory minimum and a 6 month maximum sentence. However, a 2nd DUI Refusal increases the grading of the offense from an ungraded misdemeanor to a 1st degree misdemeanor, which carries a 90 day mandatory minimum jail sentence and a maximum sentence of 5 years.
In the 2016 Birchfield vs. North Dakota decision, the United States Supreme Court held that warrantless blood draws occurring in the absence of exigent circumstances are unconstitutional. After Birchfield, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that the DUI Refusal penalties and enhanced gradings do not apply to offenders asked to submit to warrantless blood draws where police lack exigent circumstances to request a warrantless blood draw.
In Commonwealth vs. Mario Giron (155 A.3d 635), police initiated a traffic stop after observing the defendant side swipe a parked vehicle. Upon approaching the vehicle, the officer noted a strong odor of alcohol coming from the vehicle, and that the defendant had red, glassy eyes and slurred speech. Upon exiting the vehicle, the defendant had unsteady footing, and was placed under arrest for DUI. He was asked to submit to a blood draw, and not a breath test, and was read a 2008 version of the DL-26 form, which provides chemical test warnings to the driver. The defendant refused to read or sign the form, and subsequently refused to perform the chemical test. The defendant was found guilty of the M1 DUI General Impairment with Refusal, and was given a 90 day to 5 year jail sentence.
The Superior Court ultimately upheld the DUI General Impairment conviction, but overturned the DUI Refusal enhancements. Specifically, the Court held that under Birchfield, in the absence of a warrant or exigent circumstances justifying a search, a defendant who refuses to provide a blood sample when requested by police is not subject to the enhanced penalties provided in 75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3803-3804. The case was sent back to the trial court so that the defendant could be re-sentenced on the DUI General Impairment (5 day mandatory and 6 month maximum) and not the DUI General Impairment with Refusal (90 day mandatory and 5 year maximum).
Please note that this ruling is limited to cases where (1) a blood draw was the only form of requested testing (2) the blood draw request was done without a warrant and (3) the blood draw request was done without there being exigent circumstances present. If you refuse a breath test, you will still be subject to the DUI Refusal penalties. This decision also has no impact on the civil license suspensions imposed as a result of refusing chemical testing.
As always, any person facing a DUI charge should not attempt to defend themselves regardless of any legal research they've conducted over the internet. If you're charged with a DUI in Pennsylvania, contact an attorney immediately.
Recently, the Zuckerman Law Firm represented a college student at Penn State University, who was cited with public drunkenness and disorderly conduct. The client was accused of being intoxicated at an apartment complex, leading security to contact police, who in turn issued citations. If convicted, the client faced up to $900 in fines and court costs, along with publicly searchable convictions.
Represented by Attorney Zuckerman, the court granted counsel's request to dismiss charges when the police officer failed to appear in court as required. Based upon the favorable resolution, the client is now able to pursue a criminal record expungement, to remove the case information off of the PA Unified Judicial System Portal.
If you are a Penn State Student cited with an offense in Western Pennsylvania, please feel free to contact the Zuckerman Law Firm at 412-447-5580 for a free case consultation.
The Zuckerman Law Firm recently represented a construction worker accused of Criminal Trespass, a felony of the third degree punishable by up to 7 years in jail. He stood accused of entering another person's home without permission while under the influence of alcohol. As a gainfully employed construction worker with a past criminal record, a conviction for this offense could have led to his incarceration and loss of employment.
The client was represented by Attorney Zuckerman, who referred the client for a drug and alcohol assessment. On the preliminary hearing date, a deal was worked out where the client plead to simple trespasser and public drunkenness summary offenses, receiving credit for time served. In short, the felonies were dropped to the lowest possible criminal offenses where no additional fines became due.
This resolution was ideal under the circumstances, eliminating the need for a costly and stressful trial.
In December of 2017, Attorney Zuckerman successfully lobbied the ARD Court judge for leniency on behalf of a client facing a loss of employment with a license suspension. The client was charged with a 1st Offense, Middle Tier DUI based upon having a blood alcohol concentration between a .10% to a .16%, but closer to the higher end of this range.
Although a negotiated agreement was reached for him to be admitted into the ARD program, he faced a 30 day license suspension upon conviction. Given his line of work, he stood a near 100% chance of losing his job, pension, and health benefits.
Prior to the case being called, Attorney Zuckerman was able to successfully argue at sidebar for the Court to admit the client into ARD on a DUI - General Impairment charge, which carries no license suspension. This offense allowed him to continue to provide for his family while also holding him properly accountable for the decision to drink and drive.
Our office was retained to represent a college student with no criminal history accused of breaking into a fellow student's apartment. The client was charged with Criminal Trespass, a felony of the second degree, punishable by a maximum prison sentence of up to 10 years in jail. Along with jail time, this student faced a permanent criminal record and expulsion from the university.
This case posed significant challenges for the defense, as there was more than ample evidence to convict if the case went to trial. Our firm's representation of the client centered around damage control - showing the prosecution that this was a good person who deserved a second chance.
At the preliminary hearing, our firm successfully advocated on our client's behalf with the arresting officer and District Attorney, who agreed that based upon the circumstances, that prosecution of the felony charge was not necessary. The felony charge was dropped in return for the client's guilty plea to a summary disorderly conduct for fines and court costs only. Based upon this successful result, the client is eligible to pursue an expungement of the dismissed criminal trespass charge.
Pittsburgh Criminal Defense Lawyer Dave Zuckerman has been selected to the 2018 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers Rising Stars list. This professional honor is only awarded to 2.5% of eligible criminal defense and DUI defense lawyers in Pennsylvania.
Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates and peer reviews by practice area. The result is a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys.
The Super Lawyers lists are published nationwide in Super Lawyers Magazines and in leading city and regional magazines and newspapers across the country. Attorney Zuckerman's listing can be found on the Super Lawyers Website.
Learn more about how to handle your 3rd DUI case by viewing this website. For a free consultation, contact former DUI prosecutor and Pittsburgh DUI Lawyer Dave Zuckerman at 412-447-5580 today.Read More
Based upon a referral from another law firm, our office was retained to represent a man accused of disseminating naked photographs of his ex-wife to mutual acquaintances. It was alleged that the client texted nude photos of his ex-wife from the neck down to a friend, as revenge for the ex-wife cheating on the client. Three months later, and without direction to do so by the client, the friend showed the photos to his co-workers, which ultimately led to the commencement of a criminal investigation and criminal charges being filed.
After meeting with the client and preparing for the preliminary hearing, multiple evidentiary weaknesses were discovered. First, the photographs were never recovered during the course of the investigation, and none of the witnesses had personal knowledge if the body parts depicted in the photograph were actually those of the ex-wife. Second, several of the witnesses may have conspired to delete evidence. Third, there was no evidence to support that the client directed his friend to disseminate the photos to others for the purpose of harassing his ex-wife, which is an element of the offense.
Upon discussing the case with the investigating officer and District Attorney, it was agreed that the case should not be prosecuted further at the Court of Common Pleas level. As such, the misdemeanor Unlawful Dissemination charge was dismissed in return for a guilty plea to summary offenses for fines and court costs.
In 2016, our office was retained to represent a military veteran who picked up two separate DUI cases in quick succession. The client was charged at the first case with a DUI for the Highest Rate of Alcohol offense and Endangering the Welfare of a Child. At the second case, the client was charged with a DUI for a High Rate of Alcohol. She faced a total mandatory minimum jail sentence of 33 days in jail at both cases, and up to 5 and 1/2 years of total confinement or probationary supervision.
Our office was able to negotiate an agreement for the client to plead guilty to DUI General Impairment charges, both of which were treated as first offenses. For first offense DUI General Impairment charges, there is no mandatory jail sentence, but a mandatory period of probation of 6 months at each case for a total of 1 year of probation. In negotiating this agreement, our office worked with the client to chronicle her military history, compile character reference letters, and provide documentation of treatment. Providing a vast array of mitigating documentation helped persuade the District Attorney's office to offer a favorable resolution of these cases.
In May of 2017, a ZLF client found himself charged with Carrying a Firearm Without a License when a firearm was located under the front passenger seat of his vehicle. Our client was giving a ride to a neighbor's friend when he failed to use a turn signal. A traffic stop was conducted, and without any prior knowledge that the passenger was armed, the passenger stuffed a gun under the front passenger seat of the vehicle. Both men blamed one another for the gun, and as a result, the police charged them both with Carrying a Firearm Without a License based upon a theory of joint constructive possession. To make matters worse, the client was held in jail on a probation detainer for a non-violent offense pending the resolution of the case.
Attorney Zuckerman conducted research on the passenger's background, discovering that he had prior firearms and violent crimes violations. Thereafter, he took this information to the District Attorney's Office, and after a fair review of the case file, the DA's office agreed to dismiss all gun possession charges at the preliminary hearing. On the other hand, the front seat passenger is properly facing trial for the firearms offenses.
The client's case resolved with a guilty plea to a Driving on a Suspended License violation for 60-days of house arrest. One week after the gun charges were dropped, the detainer was lifted and the client returned to work to support his girlfriend and her children.
This client was 100% innocent, and is grateful to the DA's office for their diligence in comprehensively reviewing the facts before making the right decision to only prosecute the responsible party.