Our Recent Appeal Cases

Mr. Mosser represented a client that was convicted of a serious aggravated assault on his former paramour.  The trial was a classic “he-said-she said” case, featuring the complainant’s accusations against our client’s steadfast denial.  Mr. Mosser filed a PCRA petition alleging that prior trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate or call favorable character witnesses who would have testified that our client had a good reputation for being peaceful, which would have substantiated his testimony.  After an evidentiary hearing at which Mr. Mosser secured an admission from prior trial counsel that he believed such witnesses would not have helped the case, the PCRA Court nevertheless denied the petition. 

Mr. Mosser appealed that decision to the Superior Court.  In a published decision that reinforced legal precedent in this Commonwealth, the Superior Court reversed the PCRA Court’s decision and ordered a new trial.  A copy of the Superior Court’s precedential opinion can be viewed here.  

Mr. Mosser represented a client who defended himself against someone who punched him, knocked him out, jumped on top of him, choked him nearly unconscious and had a knife.  The client was nevertheless convicted of Third Degree murder and sentenced to twenty-five to fifty years’ incarceration. This happened because his trial lawyer mishandled the case.  Mr. Mosser litigated an evidentiary hearing at which he argued that the lawyer gave our client faulty advice that caused him to waive his right to testify and explain what really happened.  During questioning of this prior lawyer, Mr. Mosser secured an admission from counsel that his advice was inaccurate.  After extensive post-hearing briefing, the Court granted Mr. Mosser’s petition and vacated the client’s conviction.  In announcing its decision, the Judge noted that this was the fist PCRA petition he had ever granted after having served for over a decade on the bench. Mr. Mosser subsequently negotiated a favorable plea deal for the client, and his sentence will be at least cut in half, which will afford the client an immediate opportunity for parole given the amount of time the client has served. 

Confidential Settlement

Mr. Mosser represented a vulnerable elderly woman who was defrauded.  Specifically, two fraudsters contacted her and convinced her to send her life’s savings to them under the guise that they worked for the federal government and had discovered that her life’s savings was at risk of being stolen. The fraudsters, who were never identified or caught, convinced our client to withdraw large sums of cash and send the cash in fed-ex packages throughout the United States; was told to send international wires to banks in Thailand; and was instructed to purchase over $10,000.00 in gift cards to stores like Target and Apple.  All of this money, wires, and spending was from her longtime bank accounts at an international top tier bank.  She had never sent a wire in her three decades of banking there, had never made large withdrawals, and her only activity at the bank for decades were small withdrawals from her teacher’s pay and pension and her social security checks.  

Mr. Mosser sued the Bank.  We alleged that this fraud happened because the Bank failed to detect, prevent, or otherwise do anything about it while our client’s life savings were completely depleted over the course of a year of uncharacteristic withdrawal and spending.  This happened despite the Bank’s public advertisements that it had specialized fraud detection systems that monitored customer transactions in order to identify fraudulent activity. 

After successfully defeating the Bank’s Motion to dismiss,  the Bank chose to settle the case rather than proceed with further litigation.  This large confidential settlement is the first step in making our client whole.  The second step is an action that Mr. Mosser filed in FINRA against the large international financial services institution from which our client cashed out all of her retirement assets to transfer to her bank account mentioned above  in order to pay the fraudsters.  This institution failed to uphold its statutory and regulatory duties to detect and prevent elder abuse.  The case is currently pending.