T.T. was arrested after a victim reported to police that two men committed a home invasion robbery where he was beaten and had his car keys stolen. The victim reported that he knew one of the men (not T.T.), and that the co-defendant and T.T. forcibly entered his house demanding money for marijuana that the.
E.J. and his wife were going through a separation when the wife reported to police that E.J. had taken her back to his apartment against her will, choked her to the point she became unconscious, put a knife to her throat and stole her cell phone. Police took photographs of numerous red marks on her.
A pizza delivery man in Germantown called 911 after allegedly being robbed at gunpoint while working. The victim claimed that he was given a fake 100 bill in exchange for pizza and the change on the bill. A.Y. then allegedly threatened the victim with a shotgun. Police were called immediately, and after tracing phone records,.
A man called police to report that his stolen wheels and rims were on a car being driven by D.S. The car was stopped by police and impounded. The Major Crimes Auto Squad determined that the wheels and rims were in fact stolen, as were several other parts to the vehicle. D.S. made statements to.
The victim was walking home from Temple University late one night when three men suddenly ambushed him and robbed him at gunpoint, stealing a cell phone and cash. Police developed M.S. as a suspect and he was subsequently placed in a photo array and identified by the victim. The victim then picked M.S. out of.
V.B. was arrested after police are notified that she, along with 10 other people broke down a door to the victim’s house, threatened people inside, and stole a wallet. Police photographed damage to the victim’s door and arrested V.B. at her house several blocks away. At trial, the defense highlighted numerous inconsistencies in the testimony.
Police received a radio call for people trespassing on SEPTA railroad tracks and upon arrival allegedly observed C.R. and several other individuals loading rail spikes and metal plates from the tracks into a wheelbarrow. The individuals were all arrested for robbery and burglary and police diverted trains from the area for six hours. C.R. was.
The complainant testified that after leaving the gym he observed the door handle to his car damaged and saw that his Iphone was missing. The complainant tracked his phone through a missing device app on his phone and soon began following a car down Roosevelt Boulevard to a house in North Philadelphia where he observed.
Police responding to a radio call for a burglary in process observe T.R. locking the door to a house and a hot water heater and other people standing on the landing. The “owner” of the house told police, and testified, that T.R. and the co-defendant did not have permission to enter the house and take.
N.K was arrested for robbery for an incident that involved the taking of a cell phone. According to the victim he was able to get the license plate number of the car that the defendant supposedly fled in. Police ran the tag number and put him in a photo array. The victim circled the defendant’s.
Defendant was charged with theft and receiving stolen property after police stopped him driving a car that had been reported stolen. The owner of the car was the defendant’s girlfriend, and she claimed she did not consent to allowing him to drive the car. The defense challenged her credibility and convinced a judge to dismiss.
Client was charged with F1 Burglary, which would have constituted a “first strike” under PA’s three strikes law. A.S. allegedly broke into a neighbor’s house and was caught inside by the residents of the house. A scuffle ensued, the victim was allegedly injured, and A.S. was apprehended on scene by the police. After a trial,.
Defendant arrested for burglary charges and receiving stolen property after being arrested with tools that were stolen during a burglary in the neighborhood earlier that day. The defense precluded inculpatory statements from a co-defendant and successfully argued that the Commonwealth failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was involved in the burglary,.
Client was charged with conspiracy, burglary and robbery in Philadelphia after allegedly robbing and beating an individual that the victim claimed to have seen in the neighborhood on prior occasions. Philadelphia defense attorney R. Patrick Link argued that the identification made by the victim was unreliable and that S.B. had been misidentified.
Client was arrested for a gunpoint robbery after allegedly taking money from a woman who claimed to have known him from the neighborhood. Upon his arrest, C.S. allegedly provided police with a fake name. The defense successfully argued that the victim had motive to fabricate her statement to police and that she had lied because.