1st Degree Murder
Commonwealth v. D.T
Our client was convicted of first degree murder in 2008. The key evidence against him was a statement taken by a Philadelphia homicide detective from a friend of our client. The statement claimed that our client had the motive, means, and opportunity to commit the shooting. At trial, the witness who provided the statement claimed that the detective fabricated it and made him sign it after the detective physically assaulted him and told him he would ensure that the witnesses child would be taken away from him. After an extensive investigation, we found ten other people throughout Philadelphia that had previously testified to strikingly similar experiences with this detective. We filed a PCRA petition and subsequently presented testimony from these people to establish that the detective has a habit and pattern of securing false witness statements. The PCRA Court agreed that these witnesses established that this detective uses habitually coercive tactics in his interactions with witnesses. The Court vacated our client’s conviction and ordered a new trial. At a new trial, the witness statement is now in admissible. The PCRA Court also agreed with our argument that prior counsel was ineffective for failing to secure a mistrial after this detective provided grossly inflammatory and improper testimony at the first trial
Commonwealth v. K.P
We had previously secured PCRA relief for our client in the form of his right to file a post sentence motion being reinstated nunc pro tunc. This was crucial because the sentencing court tripled his previously imposed sentence. After we won in the PCRA court, the Commonwealth appealed. We persuaded the Superior Court that the relief granted to our client was proper and legally required. The Court agreed with our arguments and affirmed the lower court’s decision. We are now able to attack the client’s grossly unfair sentence.
S.B. v. J.B.
We appealed an adverse order modifying child custody entered against our client. The lower court’s modification order was issued after motions for reconsideration were filed by the opposing party, and granted the opposing party more custodial time and compelled our client to reimburse him for what he had previously paid for supervised visitation. On appeal, we argued that the order was improper because neither the opposing party or the lower court followed the correct procedures for post trial motion litigation. The Superior Court agreed with us and vacated the lower court’s modification order in its entirety.
First Degree Murder
Commonwealth v. W.S.
Our client was convicted of first degree murder and had served seventeen years of a life sentence. The case arose from a shooting in West Philadelphia. Our client maintained that he had acted in self-defense when another person started firing his weapon at him. We were hired to pursue a newly discovered evidence claim under the PCRA.
The investigation revealed that there was a ten year old boy that saw the incident in question nearly twenty years ago. Now in his late twenties, this witness explained that he had seen the decedent pull his weapon first and started firing. The evidence also showed that there were several shell casings surrounding the decedent’s body that did not match the weapon that our client had fired. The police never located the gun that the decedent had fired. However, our witness explained that immediately after the shooting, friends of the deceased took his gun and disposed of it.
After a two day, hotly contested evidentiary hearing, the court ruled in our client’s favor and vacated his first degree murder conviction. Our client has been granted a new trial and now has a strong chance of avoiding a life sentence and instead coming home soon.
Commonwealth v. K.B
This was a DUI case where our client refused to submit to a blood draw after having been stopped for suspicion of Driving Under the Influence of alcohol. The client was convicted of DUI, and was subjected to enhanced penalties for her refusal to submit to the blood draw. These penalties included a period of incarceration and fines. On appeal we argued that, based on recent United States Supreme Court precedent, the enhanced penalties were unconstitutional because our client’s refusal to have her blood drawn was actually an exercise of her constitutional rights. The Superior Court agreed, and vacated our client’s sentence such that no period of incarceration would be permitted.
3RD DEGREE MURDER
Commonwealth v. D.S
This was a third degree murder case where Mr. Mosser filed a PCRA petition on behalf of our client who had been convicted of third degree murder and sentenced to 29-62 years of incarceration. Mr. Mosser argued that the client’s former appeal lawyer was constitutionally ineffective for failing to raise on appeal that the trial court erred by refusing to give an involuntary manslaughter instruction to the jury. The PCRA Court dismissed his petition. He took an appeal to the the Superior Court, and the Court agreed with his argument and reversed the matter for an evidentiary hearing to determine if our client is entitled to a new trial.
P.A. v. H.N.
In this child custody matter, Mr. Mosser persuaded the Superior Court to reverse the trial court’s restriction on our client’s constitutional right to expose his child to his religion.
United States v. T.V.
In this federal habeas corpus action, Mr. Mosser persuaded the federal appeals court to exercise its discretionary review to consider a case where we have alleged that plea counsel was ineffective for failing to disclose favorable evidence to the client, thus rendering the client’s guilty plea invalid.
NLG v. 9197-5904 Q.I.
Mr. Mosser successfully briefed a motion to reconsider an $8 million punitive damages award levied against our client. After his briefing was completed, the award was reduced over 90 percent.
Quebec Inc. v. NLG
Mr. Mosser was asked to represent an international company in the Southern District of New York. He successfully had the case against our client dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
J.F. v. Detective L.S.
This was a civil rights case that Mr. Mosser filed against a Philadelphia police detective. Our client was wrongfully incarcerated for sixteen months for a robbery he did not commit. He was found not guilty at trial because video evidence showed that someone else committed the crime, and the victim repeatedly told the government that our client was not the culprit. After our client was found not guilty, we sued the assigned detective for malicious prosecution. After Mr. Mosser took the detective’s deposition, the city chose to settle the case rather than go to trial.
Commonwealth v. M.L
In this case, the client was wrongfully advised by a prior lawyer to accept a plea offer on a charge that he violated his probation, even though there really was no probation violation. Unfortunately, the sentence that was imposed required that he be deported. Mr. Mosser filed a PCRA petition alleging that the client’s prior lawyer was constitutionally ineffective, and that as such, the client was entitled to re-set the case to the pre-plea posture. The PCRA petition was successful, and the client now no longer faces deportation because of an extremely favorable plea deal negotiated by Mr. Mosser.
D.T. v. City of Philadelphia Police Department
This was a civil rights case we filed on behalf of a nineteen year old client who was present at the scene of a fight in North Philadelphia. One of the responding officers arrested him, cuffed the client’s hands behind his back, shoved him to the ground, and repeatedly stepped on our client’s forearm. This caused the client to suffer a broken wrist. We sued the responsible officer for excessive force, and after the officer was deposed, the City settled the case for a confidential amount.
Commonwealth v. L.S.R.
Our client was permanently deported to Mexico after agreeing to plead guilty to a simple theft charge. We filed a petition for error coram nobis in York County, PA, and alleged that trial counsel had been ineffective in failing to advise her of the deportation consequences to pleading guilty. The coram nobis petition is an extremely rare filing that most lawyers are unaware of.
After the issues were briefed and oral argument was held, the court granted the petition, and re-fashioned the client’s sentence so that she could legally re-enter the United States and remain here with her family.
Commonwealth v. K.A.
This case was an appeal of a gun conviction. Specifically, the client was found in possession of a firearm with an altered serial number and convicted of tampering with the serial number. Mr. Mosser successfully argued on appeal to the Superior Court that the mere possession of the firearm was not sufficient to prove that the client had himself altered the serial number. The conviction and sentence were thus reversed.
Commonwealth v. T.O.
In this case, the client’s prior lawyer failed to file an appeal, and claimed that his client never asked him to file one. We filed a PCRA petition alleging that the client had specifically instructed his lawyer to file an appeal. After a lengthy evidentiary hearing that included testimony from the client and Mr. Mosser’s cross examination of the prior lawyer, the PCRA court found our client to be credible, the prior lawyer to have not been credible, and granted the PCRA petition. The client’s rights to file an appeal were restored, and the case is currently on appeal
Commonwealth v. K.P.
This case involved a client who wished to challenge his sentence. Unfortunately, despite telling his lawyer he wanted to appeal his sentence, that lawyer did not file the required motion to preserve the issue.
Mr. Mosser filed a PCRA petition, had the client and the former lawyer testify, and convinced the judge that the client was entitled to have his right to file a post sentence motion restored so that he could have an appeal about his sentence.
R.S. v. T.T.
Our client’s shared custody of his young son was taken away after a custody trial. On appeal, Mr. Mosser successfully argued that the trial court abused its discretion by not balancing all the proper factors required by law. The Superior Court agreed with his argument, and reversed the trial court’s order and reinstated our client’s shared custody of his son. The Superior Court’s opinion is published case law, which establishes favorable legal precedent for similarly situated litigants in Pennsylvania.
Commonwealth v. D.T.
Our client was sentenced to a mandatory five to ten years incarceration for his conviction of possessing a firearm in close proximity to drugs. On appeal, Mr. Mosser argued that the sentence was unconstitutional in light of US Supreme Court precedent. The Superior Court agreed and vacated the sentence.
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT W/ FIREARM
Commonwealth v. B.H.
Our client was convicted of committing an aggravated assault with a firearm and sentenced to a mandatory term of five to ten years incarceration. On appeal, Mr. Mosser argued that the sentence was unconstitutional as it violated his due process rights. The Superior Court agreed and vacated the sentence.
Commonwealth v. R.S.
Our client was charged with drug possession. After filing a legal brief and presenting oral argument, Mr. Mosser convinced the court that the SEPTA officer responsible for our client’s arrest lacked the legal authority to arrest him because he was acting outside his jurisdiction. The court agreed and dismissed all the charges.
Commonwealth v. S.R.
Our client was charged with DUI. Mr. Mosser filed a motion to suppress and argued that the officer lacked probable cause to arrest her. After hearing oral argument, the court agreed, granted the suppression motion, and dismissed the charges.
AUTO THEFT & RESISTING ARREST
Commonwealth v. R.F.
Our client was sentenced to seven and one half to fifteen years incarceration for stealing a car and leading the police on a high speed chase. On appeal, Mr. Mosser argued that the sentence was improperly excessive because the judge did not apply the applicable sentencing guidelines. The Superior Court agreed, vacated his sentence and sent the case back to the lower court for re-sentencing.
Commonwealth v. R.S.
Our client was charged with drug possession after heroin was allegedly found in his pocket. During Mr. Mosser’s cross examination of the arresting officer, she admitted that she actually had no idea where the heroin came from, and that it might have actually belonged to someone else. Our client was found not guilty of all charges.