Results

These are some of the cases that Farrell Weaver & Okun have handled. The names of the actual clients have been redacted.

Defendant was charged with pointing a firearm at 2 women who were the Defendant’s ex-girlfriends (alleged victims). Defendant was prohibited from possessing a firearm. The police found Defendant and his girlfriend within several blocks of where this had occurred. The police further found that inside the girlfriend’s car there was a handgun that was owned by the girlfriend. The handgun in the car was not similar to the gun that was described by the 2 women. At the trial, the Defendant denied that he possessed a firearm.

FW&O argued to the jury that the Commonwealth had failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt because the alleged victims’ description of the firearm was not the firearm found by the police. The jury agreed and found the Defendant not guilty of all seven (7) charges.

Defendant went to the Pittsburgh Airport to travel. Defendant forgot that he had a loaded firearm in his suitcase. The Commonwealth charged him with carrying a firearm without a license. Defendant hired an attorney who was denied any plea agreement by the prosecutors in Allegheny County. Defendant believed that he was forced to plead guilty to the charge, which was graded as a misdemeanor of the first-degree (maximum sentence of five (5) years in prison). The Court sentenced Defendant to six (6) months of probation with no fine.

Defendant was told by his counsel that because the charge was a misdemeanor, Defendant was not in jeopardy of losing his job or being denied opportunities of promotion. After being sentenced, Defendant was denied an opportunity of promotion and was told that his conviction would probably be grounds for his termination.

Defendant contacted FW&O to try to get post-conviction relief. One of Defendant’s problems was that he could not receive post-conviction relief if he did not continue to serve his sentence. FW&O manipulated Defendant’s probation sentence to have it dragged out so that Defendant continued to be serving his sentence through out the post-conviction proceeding.

FW&O contended that plea counsel gave ineffective assistance for the following reasons: 1) failing to explain to Defendant that he had a defense of mistake of fact which could negate the criminal intent, 2) by advising Defendant that he had no employment consequences when this was not true, 3) failing to discuss character evidence and that character evidence, alone, can be grounds to show a reasonable doubt, and 4) failing to argue that the Commonwealth did not show intent in the factual summary. FW&O also argued that a new trial should be given in the interest of justice.

After a hearing, the trial court granted relief and scheduled the case for a new trial.

FW&O represented Defendant at trial. FW&O argued that Defendant’s mistake of fact in that he failed to realize that his gun had been mistakenly placed in his bag was grounds for a defense verdict. FW&O presented four (4) excellent character witnesses who supported the mistake defense by saying that Defendant’s reputation was contrary to the charges of a concealed firearm.

Defendant was found not guilty of the charge. Thus, after Defendant pleaded guilty to the charge of carrying a firearm without a license and was sentenced to probation, ended up being found not guilty of carrying a firearm without a license and having no collateral consequences based upon his conviction.

Client was prominent figure in his community. His girlfriend's daughter accused him of having sex with her when she was 15 years old. At the time of the accusation, the daughter was in her 20s. Client lost his high-profile job, and the case was covered extensively by the media.

Client hired FW&O due to our extensive experience in sex assault cases as well as the team-like approach we take to cases.

At trial, the daughter was thoroughly cross-examined which pointed out numerous inconsistencies to the jury. FW&O were able to highlight that she was inconsistent with the timeline of when things happened, the ridiculousness of her claim that she only learned in college that having sex with older men was wrong, and that she never noticed an extremely apparent medical condition of Client's. FW&O also examined the lack of investigation that the police conducted. It was argued to the jury that after the police identified Client as their suspect, they stopped looking for evidence.

When it came time for FW&O to present our defense, we called two ex-girlfriends of Client who testified as to his medical condition. Many well-known people in the community were also called as character witnesses and testified as to Client's reputation in the community for law-abidingness. Lastly, Client testified. This solidified that the daughter was lying and that Client was innocent.

After days of trial, the jury took less than 30 minutes to return a verdict of NOT GUILTY. Client felt vindicated and is working on rebuilding his life and reputation.

Client was followed by Attorney General's agents for many miles without committing any moving, traffic violations. Agents called police officers from a neighboring town to pull Client over for window tint.

A traffic stop was conducted for window tint. Upon approach of the vehicle, police officers asked Client whether he had a firearm, which he stated, "Yes." Client was immediately arrested, handcuffed and surrounded by ten (10) police officers and Attorney General agents for at least fifteen (15) minutes. Dispatch called the Agents and Officers indicating that Client had a valid Concealed Carry Permit.

After fifteen minutes of being arrested for having a valid, concealed firearm, Agents and Officers decided to talk to Defendant, while handcuffed still, about whether he had been smoking marijuana earlier. After confessing to smoking earlier, Client was put through sobriety tests and, after failing, he was arrested for DUI. After an inventory search was conducted on Client's vehicle, pounds of drugs were found in his trunk. Client was charged with Possession With Intent to Deliver.

After receiving discovery materials and an extensive review of the evidence, FW&O filed pre-trial motions to suppress all the evidence found due to violations regarding the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions for illegal search and seizures and violations of the right not to incriminate oneself pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona (requiring warning to be given when one is arrested).

After a suppression hearing was held, the trial judge agreed with FW&O's assessment of the evidence and found that there were numerous violations of Client's constitutional rights. The trial court granted the motions to suppress, and the evidence was suppressed and deemed inadmissible.

After granting of the motion to suppress, making all the evidence found and confessions made while Client was arrested inadmissible, the District Attorney's Office withdrew all the charges against Client. Client remained a person able to possess a firearm and continues to have a zero prior record due to FW&O's representation, assessment of the case, and zealous advocacy at the suppression hearing.

Client was falsely accused of having sex with his former girlfriend's underage daughter. The Commonwealth charged him with numerous sex offenses including Rape, Aggravated Indecent Assault, Indecent Assault and Corruption of Minors.

FW&O continuously demanded discovery, including protected documents. Days before the scheduled jury trial, the protected documents were made available and FW&O spent hours reviewing the information. The documents revealed that the alleged victim lied about when the supposed crimes took place. Client had an alibi. The documents also demonstrated that the alleged victim falsely accused numerous other people of inappropriately touching and raping her.

FW&O argued to the Assistant District Attorney that the alleged victim was clearly lying and used the supporting documents to bolster the argument. After many discussions, the Assistant District Attorney agreed to withdraw all of the charges against Client a few days before the trial was scheduled to begin.

Client was charged with DUI and causing accidents to unattended vehicle. The Commonwealth offered a reduced sentence for Client to plead guilty to DUI and related charges. Client would lose his license for more than a year. Rather than plead guilty, Client wanted to fight the charges and hired FW&O.

FW&O took the case to trial before a judge. The Commonwealth never produced the body worn camera footage from the police, and FW&O used this to their advantage. The judge also ultimately made a determination that the police officer was lying after FW&O's cross examination. Prior to making a determination, the judge asked that the Commonwealth and FW&O brief the facts of the case. Using our skills in appellate brief writing, FW&O submitted a brief to the court.

Following the trial and brief, the judge found Client not guilty of all charges. Client avoided a possible jail sentence and loss of license for more than a year. He continues to work as a driver and provide for his family.

Client was falsely accused of assaulting his ex-girlfriend. He was charged with Aggravated Assault, False Imprisonment, and other related crimes. The ex-girlfriend was hospitalized with broken ribs. After realizing that Client was seeing a different girl, she reported to the police that Client was the one who assaulted her.

After rejecting the Commonwealth's offer of reduced charges with a state prison sentence, FW&O took the case to trial before the judge. The ex-girlfriend took the stand and repeated the false accusations while getting very emotional. Following her direct testimony, FW&O painstakingly cross examined her on the myriad of lies that she told the police and hospital staff. Most crucial, FW&O pointed out the fact that Client lived right across the street from the police station – where the ex-girlfriend alleged that all of these crimes occurred. Rather than go across the street or yell out the window for help, the ex-girlfriend claimed that she escaped from Client's home and drove to the hospital before waiting days to tell the police about what happened.

After FW&O's lengthy cross examination of the ex-girlfriend, the judge found that he could not believe her story and found Client not guilty.

Client was found guilty of DUI and other related offenses after a trial before a judge. The judge sentenced Client to a jail sentence.

Client hired FW&O to effectuate a direct appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. FW&O reviewed the transcripts as well as the entire case and raised the issue of whether or not Client's mother could provide police access to his home when they knew that Client did not live with his mother. FW&O filed a Brief for Appellant as well as a Reply Brief to the Commonwealth's argument. FW&O argued the case before a three-judge panel in Superior Court.

Following briefs and oral argument, the Superior Court issued a published opinion reversing the trial court's decision. A published opinion is one in which the Court considers its decision precedential and is now law. The reversal resulted in a suppression of key evidence which allowed Client to avoid a mandatory jail sentence.

Client was falsely accused by his ex-girlfriend, the mother of his two children, of sexually assaulting his daughter under the age of 10. Other attorneys in the area recommended that he consult with FW&O. After we explained our strategy, Client hired us to represent him for the preliminary hearing and trial.

FW&O gathered an abundance of exculpatory evidence that was not known to the DAs Office. Following the preliminary hearing, FW&O had many conversations with the prosecutor. After getting a feel for what the prosecutor would do, FW&O decided to present the exculpatory evidence prior to going to trial. The evidence showed that the ex-girlfriend made this up for custody reasons, she was making a profit off of books that she was selling on Amazon pertaining to the allegations, and ChildLine found that the allegations were baseless.

After looking through the exculpatory evidence and having Client evaluated by a doctor, the prosecutor agreed with FW&O and withdrew all of the charges.

Client was shot and laying next to his car. The police arrived and immediately started questioning Client as to whether or not he shot himself. He was treated as a suspect. The police searched Client's car and the surrounding area for a gun. A gun was never found. While Client is in surgery, police go to the hospital and illegally seize his clothes. Based upon the illegally obtained clothes, they then apply for a search warrant for Client's car. Bricks of heroin are located in the car. The Commonwealth charges Client with Persons Not to Possess a Firearm as well as Possession With Intent to Deliver – Heroin.

Client hires FW&O to attempt to suppress the evidence and have the case dismissed. FW&O conducted extensive legal research and filed three different pretrial motions: 1) Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 2) Motion to Suppress Evidence from the Illegal Tow of the Car, and 3) Motion to Suppress Evidence from the Illegal Seizure of the Clothes. A lengthy pretrial motions hearing occured where FW&O cross examined the police officers extensively.

After the hearing, the judge agreed with all of FW&O's arguments and granted all of the pretrial motions. Without any evidence left, the Commonwealth Nolle Prossed the case.

Client was charged with homicide and facing a potential life sentence in prison. It was alleged that Client shot and killed a woman in her car. It was further alleged that when the passenger bailed out and ran, Client shot and grazed the passenger in the head, injuring him. Client was charged with criminal homicide, criminal attempt homicide, aggravated assault, and carrying a firearm without a license. The Commonwealth had a witness that claimed that she was on the sidewalk, witnessed the killing, and identified Client as the shooter. The case was scheduled to proceed to a jury trial.

Farrell, Weaver & Okun reviewed all of the evidence meticulously. The attorneys drove to the scene of the killing, took many photos, and identified all of the possible surveillance cameras. Piecing the evidence that the Commonwealth had together with the evidence that we independently gathered, Farrell, Weaver & Okun were able to demonstrate that the witness could not have seen the killing and none of the surveillance cameras could corroborate her whereabouts during the murder.

After mulling over whether to introduce this evidence in a surprise fashion at trial or show the Commonwealth prior to trial, Farrell, Weaver & Okun presented the evidence to the prosecutor. The prosecutor did the right thing and withdrew all of the charges against Client – including criminal homicide.

Client was charged with homicide and facing a potential life sentence in prison. It was alleged that Client shot and killed a man in the middle of a street in Homewood.

Farrell, Weaver & Okun represented Client during the jury trial. The Commonwealth presented detectives, eye-witnesses and a nationally-recognized DNA expert – all of whom were vigorously cross-examined.

Farrell, Weaver & Okun took a risk and asked that the jury only be permitted to consider First Degree Murder instead of both First-Degree and Third-Degree Murder. The judge and prosecution agreed to this instruction to only charge first-degree murder.

Jury returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty. Client is working two (2) jobs and providing for his children rather than spending his life in prison.

Client was found guilty of indecent assault, harassment, and aggravated indecent assault after a non-jury trial. It was alleged that he assaulted a young woman in her own apartment after doing her a favor. Client also faced severe immigration issues due to his non-citizenship status. He was sentenced to a lengthy prison term.

Client hired Farrell, Weaver and Okun at the post-sentence stage. Farrell, Weaver & Okun petitioned for a new trial due to ineffective assistance of counsel. It was alleged that counsel was ineffective for not preparing Client to testify and failing to advise client that the victim’s testimony alone could establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Despite these claims typically being reserved for post-conviction petitions, due to extraordinary circumstances and in the interest of justice, the judge granted a new trial. Client testified on his own behalf.

Farrell, Weaver & Okun represented Client during his new trial before a jury. The victim testified and was cross-examined thoroughly. The cross-examination exposed many lies and exaggerations from the victim.

The jury found Client not guilty of the sex assault charges. Client went from a sentence of years imprisonment in a state corrections institution to walking out of the courtroom.

Client was charged with kidnapping, robbery, robbery of a motor vehicle, aggravated assault, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, sexual assault, terroristic threats, unlawful restraint, false imprisonment, indecent assault, indecent exposure, simple assault, and conspiracy to commit robbery.

The facts were that a female taxi driver stopped at a gas station where she met two (2) young men who needed a ride. When they got near the destination, one of the men produced a firearm and demanded money. Thereafter, it was alleged that Client brutally forced the victim to perform sexual acts upon Client. The victim was stripped of all of her clothes and thrown out of the vehicle. The two men stole the car and left the scene. The victim eventually found help and called the police.

After about 40 minutes from when the two men fled the scene, a police officer spotted the stolen car and gave chase. The stolen car initially was driving down a main thoroughfare but turned onto a neighborhood street where the car traveled at an extremely high and dangerous speed. The police continued to follow the stolen car. The car crashed through a fence and attempted to travel up a hillside, which was someone’s backyard. Eventually, the occupants ran from the police up toward the main thoroughfare.

The police were some distance behind the occupants of the car but drove to the spot on the main thoroughfare where the occupants were last seen running. The police saw Client who was in the area. The police stopped Client and brought the victim to the area where she positively identified Client as one of the robbers and the one who forced her to perform sexual acts. Client was arrested. Client had been on parole for a conviction of robbery.

Client said that he was coming from a friend’s house, where he had been all night. He said that he was walking while listening to music through his phone and earbuds. He said that he heard sirens, stopped, took out his earbuds and saw two (2) young men running from below the hill (where the stolen car had stopped). He said the next thing that he knew was that he was being forced at gunpoint by the police to get on the ground. Then he was arrested.

The Co-Defendant was later arrested and identified by the video from the camera at the gas station.

Farrell & Associates did an extensive investigation which showed among other things: 1) the video of the second person in the gas station with the Co-Defendant was not Client and much younger than Client, 2) there were age differences between Client and Co-Defendant, 3) there were no ties between Client and Co-Defendant, 4) Client had an alibi witness who placed Client’s location miles away from the crime scene at the time that the crimes occurred, and 5) other relevant matters which showed Client was innocent.

Farrell & Associates represented Client for his jury trial. After reviewing the case, Farrell & Associates had several discussions with the District Attorney regarding major problems with the case and the fact that Client was innocent.

Persuaded by Farrell & Associates arguments, the Commonwealth looked to juvenile probation officers that knew the Co-Defendant and asked these juvenile probation officers to review the videotape. One officer actually identified the other person in the videotape at the gas station who was with Co-Defendant. This person was a friend of Co-Defendant and obviously not Client.

The victim had identified Client as her attacker two (2) times: 1) on the night that the crimes occurred and 2) at the preliminary hearing. After the Commonwealth informed the victim that it appeared that her identification may have been wrong, the victim agreed that she may have been mistaken.

The District Attorney concurred with Farrell & Associates’ assessment of the case that Client was innocent and dismissed the charges against Client. All charges were removed from Client’s record. Client was extremely pleased with the result.

Client and Co-Defendant were confronted by the victim outside of a store. Client and the victim began fighting. Co-Defendant obtained Client’s firearm which had been stored under the driver’s seat of Client’s car. Co-Defendant came out of the car and shot the victim resulting in the victim’s immediate death. It was alleged that Client encouraged Co-Defendant by telling him to kill the victim.

Client was charged with criminal homicide, criminal solicitation and criminal conspiracy. Client hired Farrell & Associates for his jury trial. Farrell & Associates presented character witnesses to show that Client had a good reputation in the community for non-violence and law abidingness. Farrell & Associations also called eye witnesses that testified that Client did not say anything to encourage Co-Defendant to shoot the victim and other evidence. The Commonwealth witnesses were also extensively cross-examined.

Client was found not guilty of all charges. Client was extremely pleased with the result.

Client was charged and convicted of the following charges: at the first criminal information with involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, indecent assault, sexual abuse of children, corruption of minors, at the second criminal information with criminal attempt (statutory sexual assault), involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, indecent assault, sexual abuse of children, furnishing liquor to minors and corruption of minors. The allegations were that Client met two female girls (ages 13 and 14), gave them alcoholic beverages, and seduced them in a motel. Thereafter, Client took pictures of one girl in her naked state. Client was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of thirteen and one half (13½) to twenty-seven (27) years of incarceration.

After being retained to represent Client, Farrell & Associates filed a post-conviction petition contending that counsel gave ineffective assistance for failing to ask for a jury instruction that Client was under the mistaken belief that both girls were over the age of consent. The argument was based upon the fact that the law allowed for such an instruction as to the type of charges brought against Client. A hearing was conducted.

Upon strong urging by Farrell & Associates, the Commonwealth offered a deal whereby they would agree that Client would receive a new trial if Client was to plead to the charges and receive a total sentence of five (5) to ten (10) years of imprisonment. A new trial was ordered, Client pleaded guilty to the charges and received a sentence reduction of five (5) to ten (10) years of incarceration. Client was pleased with the deal.

Client was arrested for two (2) separate criminal informations (cases) of DUI. Concerning one (1) DUI case, it was alleged by the Commonwealth that Client was speeding and was properly stopped and arrested for DUI. Farrell Weaver & Okun filed a motion to suppress the evidence based upon the argument that the police had no proper basis to stop Client. The argument was that the officer had no probable cause to believe that Client was speeding.

After a hearing was conducted by the trial court, the trial court suppressed all evidence based upon the fact that the police had no grounds to stop Client (the police could not prove that they had probable cause to show that Client was speeding). The one (1) criminal information of charging DUI and speeding was withdrawn by the Commonwealth because the evidence was suppressed. As to the second DUI charge, Client was accepted into the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (“ARD”) Program and the charges were dismissed. Client lost his license for sixty (60) days rather than two and one half (2½) years. It is an understatement to say that Client was extremely satisfied.

Client was stopped by the police driving her vehicle with various passengers. The Commonwealth alleged that Client possessed a firearm without a license and was driving without a license.

Farrell Weaver & Okun convinced the District Attorney’s Office to withdraw all charges. The court dismissed all charges.

Client was arrested for two (2) separate criminal informations of DUI. Concerning one (1) DUI case, the police stopped Client after it was alleged that Client performed an illegal U-Turn in order to circumvent a police DUI check-point. Farrell Weaver & Okun filed a motion to suppress contending that the stop by the police was unlawful in that there was no probable cause to believe Client had conducted an illegal U-Turn.

After an extensive hearing, with testimony from the police officer, Client, and an investigator presenting photographs and measurements, the trial court agreed with Farrell Weaver & Okun and suppressed the evidence. The Commonwealth withdrew the charges at the one criminal case. As to the second criminal case, Client was accepted into the ARD program for first-time offenders and the charges were dismissed. Client lost his license for sixty (60) days. Had he been found guilty of the two (2) DUI cases, he would have lost his license for two and one half (2½) years. Client was overjoyed by the representation of Farrell Weaver & Okun.

Client was charged with unlawfully possessing a firearm in a car, being a convicted felon in possession of a handgun, possession of an instrument of crime, careless driving, and driving while his license was suspended. The allegations were that Client was driving in a careless manner, was stopped for careless driving when it was determined that Client was driving with a suspended driver’s license because his license was suspended for a DUI conviction. Farrell Weaver & Okun filed a motion to suppress arguing the stop was illegal, that there was no careless driving and that all evidence should be suppressed.

The trial court agreed with Farrell Weaver & Okun and ruled that all evidence should be suppressed. All charges were dismissed.

After a jury trial, Client was found guilty of first-degree murder and received a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The facts were that an altercation occurred after Client accused the victim of stealing Client’s money. Client chased the victim for several blocks where the altercation continued and Client stabbed victim to death.

Farrell Weaver & Okun represented Client after he lost his post-conviction appeal in the Superior Court. Farrell Weaver & Okun convinced the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to accept the appeal. The Supreme Court agreed with Farrell Weaver & Okun argument that prior counsel gave ineffective assistance for failing to argue that trial counsel did not obtain psychiatric evidence to prove diminished capacity (third-degree murder). A new trial was granted.

When the case was remanded to the trial court, Farrell Weaver & Okun represented Client in a trial whereby Client was found guilty of third-degree murder and sentenced to ten to twenty years of incarceration. Needless to say, Client was very satisfied with the Results obtained.

Client was charged with three (3) separate cases. In the first case, Client was charged with burglary and two (2) counts of simple assault. The allegation was that Client entered the victim’s home and committed two simple assaults.

In the second case, Client was charged with one (1) count each of aggravated assault, recklessly endangering another person, driving without a license and two (2) counts of harassment. The allegations were that Client was driving his truck and attempted to run the victim off the road to cause serious bodily injury.

In the third case, the Commonwealth charged Client with one (1) count each of simple assault and harassment. The Commonwealth theory was that Client verbally harassed the victim and then assaulted the victim resulting in medical bills of over $20,000.00. The Commonwealth asked that Client plead guilty, receive probation and pay restitution as to all of the medical bills.

Farrell Weaver & Okun represented Client at trial and obtained the following Results: as to the first case, Client pleaded guilty to the simple assault charges and the burglary count was dismissed. As to the second case, Client pleaded guilty to harassment (summary offense) and driving without a license. As to the final case, the case was tried. Client was found guilty of harassment (summary offense) and not guilty of simple assault. Farrell Weaver & Okun convinced the court that the restitution requested by the prosecution was not applicable because the harassment charge only went to the verbal confrontation and not to any physical injuries. No restitution was ordered.

Client was charged with aggravated assault by attempting to cause and/or causing serious bodily injury to the victim. Farrell Weaver & Okun represented Client at a trial.

Client was found not guilty of all charges and was discharged. Client had criminal record expunged.

Client was charged with eight (8) counts of aggravated assault, and one (1) count each of terroristic threats and criminal mischief. The allegations were that Client was in a vehicle following a second vehicle containing various people include a person that Client had strongly disliked. It was further alleged that Client rammed his vehicle into the other vehicle causing damage (criminal mischief), began threatening the occupants with crimes, and then began shooting at the second vehicle. A trial occurred whereby Farrell Weaver & Okun represented Client. At the trial, various persons testified that Client committed the crimes.

Client was found not guilty of all charges and was released. The charges were later expunged by Farrell Weaver & Okun. Client was very happy.

Client was charged with rape and criminal conspiracy. Farrell Weaver & Okun represented Client at trial. At trial, the victim, an adult female, testified that Client along with his female co-defendant sexually assaulted the victim while everyone was partying.

Client was found not guilty of all charges and discharged. The charges were expunged at a later date. Client was satisfied.

Client was charged with rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and unlawful restraint. The allegations were that Client and the victim worked at a restaurant where Client restrained and then sexually assaulted the victim in the bathroom while both individuals were on break. Farrell Weaver & Okun represented Client at trial. Various witnesses testified for both parties.

Client was found not guilty of all charges. Client was pleased with the Results.

Client was charged with two (2) counts of homicide by vehicle DUI related, two (2) counts of involuntary manslaughter, three (3) counts of recklessly endangering another person and one (1) count of DUI. The Commonwealth alleged that Client was driving intoxicated when Client caused an accident killing two (2) individuals and placing another individual at risk of serious bodily injury. Farrell Weaver & Okun represented Client before the time Client was arrested to the conclusions of the proceedings. Prior to trial Farrell Weaver & Okun filed a motion to dismiss based upon the fact that the Commonwealth could not prove that Client caused the accident.

The trial court agreed with Farrell Weaver & Okun and ruled that the charges of homicide by vehicle DUI related, involuntary manslaughter and recklessly endangering another person should be dismissed. Thereafter, Client went to trial for the DUI charge but was found guilty and sentenced to house arrest. Client was very happy with the Results.

See More Case Results