Legal Question in Criminal Law in Pennsylvania

My friend was found guilty in a case involving child porn picture downloading. He claimed that his roommate did this, but since he owned the trailer the case was brought against him and not the roommate.

This was a circumstantial case. His lawyer failed to give all evidence possible:

Here is a synopsis:

The prosecutor�s closing summation presented an impeccable case; twenty minutes of explanation, charts and dates, etc.

Dave�s lawyer�s summation on the other hand was inept to say the least. About 15 minutes, with basically nothing said. (Please read below) Also, his demeanor - slouching back in his seat with his legs crossed, one would have thought we were at a picnic. Did this lawyer believe in Dave�s innocence? And, if not, should he be representing Dave? Even if, he is suppose to defend somone as if he did. That's the law.

When the prosecutor reiterated how �Mr. Mastronduono (the roommate) couldn�t even operate a computer!� she couldn't have been more mistaken.

Dave�s lawyer should have pointed out Mike�s untold skill with computers and having been a CNC operator. Mike not only can operate a computer, he was, in fact, employed as a CNC operator for years (Computer Numerical Control routing machine). My husband said it was ironic. Mike�s probably got a higher IQ than the prosecutor.

Mike was also involved in a date-rape-drug case of a 14-year-old. This happened in similar circumstances; Mike was staying at someone else�s apartment and �he knew nothing about it; he was only staying there�� Dave�s lawyer allowed the prosecution to push the trial back for four years, which led to this becoming inadmissible evidence when the statute of limitations ran out by 10 years. The trial, coincidentally, was held 9 days later!.

Dave�s lawyer should have stressed the fact of Mike�s having moved into Dave�s trailer in 2006 and the evidence stated that this was when these events began.

Dave's lawyer should have stressed the fact that Dave worked regularly, while Mike and Shelly (Mike's girlfriend) were doing methamphetamine at the time, which keeps people awake for days and nights alike.

Dave�s lawyer should have emphasized that when a computer is left on continually, very often passwords are not needed. And, I for one believe that Mike is quite capable of getting hold of such information. I would not have been surprised if he stood over Dave�s shoulder as he watched Dave.

Dave�s lawyer should have stated that when Mike said he only �downloaded music�, that if one can download music, it is not an inch stretch to be able to download anything; including pornographic images. As for building a website; anyone who wants to can learn to do this and there are hundreds of places to find out how to do that. And, someone with Mike�s capability could have easily flipped open one of Dave�s books and been able to learn this.

Dave�s lawyer should have asked for fingerprint evidence from the discs. The first piece of evidence to have gained from the very beginning, which he failed to do. And, then, not to have mentioned not having this from the prosecution in his defense summation or through the trial! A number one piece of evidence which would undoubtedly have proved guilt or innocence and of who! There was also a portable hard drive (as small as a cigarette case) to which the prosecution said these files were being downloaded. When the federal investigators came to Dave's househe did not have when answering the door, while Mike and Shelley were in their bedroom having an opportunity to be hiding it, and it�s having never been found? Were the heat-ducts checked? Was the ground under the trailer searched?

The prosecutor said that Dave �paused� when asked by the investigators, �Do you have child pornography?� Who wouldn�t pause at such an astounding question if one is unfamiliar with such things? Any normal person would have had to mentally compute such a question. I know I would have paused, I would have had taken a breath to grasp such a question if I were not involved in such things. It could just as easily been taken as an indication of innocence rather than as guilt. And Dave�s statement, �I have a five year old...� might have well been taken as; �What would I be doing having that sort of thing�?�

Dave�s lawyer also should have advised Dave to take the stand. His honesty would have surely helped to show the kind of person he is.

Dave�s lawyer said to the jury, �I know you want someone to pay for these crimes�but it isn�t necessarily Dave��, But, had all the facts and all the questions been stated and asked by Dave's lawyer, it would have at least left the broader reason for doubt and reasons for Mike and Shelley to be investigated further.

We have called the District Court and asked some questions:

How to file an appeal and ask for a public defender.

But, here is my main questions: if the judge ordered psych appointments, and Dave can't afford these, doesn't the court appoint some where for him to go either free or charge or low cost?


Asked on 7/06/10, 11:09 am

1 Answer from Attorneys
Charles A. Pascal, Jr. Law Office of Charles A. Pascal, Jr.

Little late for all that now. Choosing a lawyer who knows how to defend a particular kind of case is very important.

Of course the lawyer may have had good reasons for handling the case the way he did.

And it is very rarely a good idea for the defendant to take the stand.

It is unclear what you are asking about the psych evaluation. If the judge ordered it as a part of sentencing, then it will be a government psychologist or psychiatrist. And in that case he should get his own evaluation at his own cost to counter the government evaluation.

Read more
Answered on 7/06/10, 2:25 pm


Related Questions & Answers

More Criminal Law questions and answers in Pennsylvania