The District Attorney’s Office, headed by Harry Connick, Sr., tried and ultimately convicted Thompson of first-degree murder. As Thompson was found guilty of robbery first, he was not allowed to testify in his own defense at his murder trial, since the robbery conviction “tainted his credibility.”

Thompson then sat on death row for 14 years, until 1999, when an investigator discovered the blood evidence that Connick’s office failed to submit to Thompson’s attorney during the robbery trial. The blood in question was type B. Thompson’s blood is type O. In light of the new evidence, a Louisiana court exonerated Thompson of the robbery charge and reversed Thompson’s murder conviction, since the robbery conviction had prevented Thompson from testifying in his own defense at his murder trial.

After his release, Thompson promptly filed a lawsuit against Connick’s office for $14 million, which a jury eventually awarded him. The jury’s decision was upheld in Federal District Court before Connick appealed to the Supreme Court to reverse the jury’s decision. In a 5-4 decision, the highest court in the land sided with Connick, and denied Thompson his $14 million award.

The issue placed before the Supreme Court was not Thompson’s guilt or innocence, but whether or not Connick’s office deliberately ignored the decision in Maryland v. Brady, which holds that prosecutors must turn over favorable evidence to the defense. If the blood evidence in Thompson’s robbery trial had been revealed, he would not have been convicted; if Thompson was innocent of the robbery crime, he would have been permitted to testify at his murder trial.

The Supreme Court ruled that this one incident of failing to turn over evidence does not prove a pattern of deliberate indifference to the Brady decision, and therefore the District Attorney’s Office should not be held culpable in the abuses Thompson suffered. It is worth noting that four of the Supreme Court justices disagreed with the majority ruling. The dissent highlighted that Connick’s office is one of the worst in America in terms of failing to turn over favorable evidence to defense teams.

Although Supreme Court decisions often seem like mere matters for the law books, this decision has significant implications for defendants across the country. Most importantly, the Thomspon decision implies that failure to turn over evidence may remain unpunished by the courts, even though one piece of evidence can mean life and death for a defendant.

Typically, when a township has pre-approved their police department (such as the Lower Merion Police Department or the Pennsylvania State Police) to set up a checkpoint, they must be mindful the checkpoint must adhere to certain standards. Some (but not all) of these standards:

• The checkpoint must be set up in a location that history has shown is likely to be traveled by drunk drivers
•  The checkpoint cannot be overly invasive
• The vehicles that are stopped must be done in a systematic, and not random, fashion (i.e. a stop of every fourth car that passes, every fifth car that passes, etc., and not just a vehicle that looks “suspicious”)
•  The police must keep records of how the checkpoint is carried out.

These are just some of the requirements that need to be met in order to administer a lawful checkpoint.

Knowing the above, there is a burgeoning amount of case law decided every year defining the law on what does, and does not, constitute a lawful checkpoint. Consequently, the standard is fluid and ever-changing.  It’s important that a DUI lawyer stay up on the law in this crucial area.   Also please know that if you, or a loved one, are arrested for DUI as a result of going through an unlawfully conducted checkpoint, that the case may be thrown out.

1. While a first offense for Retail Theft of merchandise under $150.00 is a summary offense, and can be dispensed with at the District Justice level, it is the only summary offense conviction that creates a criminal record that is able to be accessed by reporting agencies. This means that a conviction for a summary Retail Theft can be seen by employers, prospective employers, and schools.
2. Many police departments now require those cited for a summary Retail Theft to have their fingerprints taken. This is the only summary offense the Commonwealth requires this for.
3. Retail Theft is an “escalating penalty” offense. This means that the grading of the offense charged will go up every time you are convicted. For example, while a first Retail Theft conviction may be a summary offense, a second conviction will always AT LEAST be a misdemeanor, and that a third conviction will ALWAYS be charged as a felony.
4. Increasingly, store detectives and police are pursuing prosecutions where the person accused never actually tried to leave the store with the merchandise, but merely concealed the merchandise for a short period of time and, in the store detectives opinion, was going to attempt to leave the store without paying.

In short, department stores and other retailers like Nordstrom’s, Macy’s, Bloomingdale’s, and J.C. Penney’s, as well as other mall stores and outlets located in King Prussia and Limerick, are losing large amounts of money to shoplifters each year and are putting pressure on the Commonwealth to take greater measures to curtail the amount of thefts that do occur.

If you or a loved one are charged with Retail Theft, or any theft offense is Pennsylvania, contact the Law Offices of Basil D. Beck III at 610-239-8870 for a free consultation at one of my offices in Norristown, Lansdowne, or Paoli, Pennsylvania.

When the District Attorney’s Office in the county that has jurisdiction over a client’s criminal offense seeks to remove them from ARD they will file a “Petition to Remove From ARD”. Each county may very a bit in its practice but the formal filing of a petition is required. There are myriad reasons why the Commonwealth may seek to remove. These include, but are not limited to: failure to pay fines, failure to make restitution, failure to complete drug and/or alcohol treatment, failure to report to probation officer, fleeing the jurisdiction, failure to perform community service, and being arrested for a new charge while on ARD probation.

The above list is viewed with varying degrees of severity by the Commonwealth and some violations will be almost an automatic removal while some may be easily remedied by just paying money for fines or restitution. While this is true there is a large area where whether a violation(s) results in a removal will rest in large part on legal counsel that the client has been wise to retain. Simply put, a criminal attorney skilled in this particular area can save a clients right to move through life with a clear criminal record rather than get jammed up with a felony or misdemeanor that involves probation, large fines, and possible jail time. Its an understatement to say that there is just too much to risk.

When faced with an possible ARD removal, an individual would be wise to look for the following in selecting an attorney: 1) Someone with extensive experience with ARD; 2) Preferably someone who’s practice encompasses the county you are in; 3) If possible, an attorney that has a working relationship with the attorneys that handle these removals for the Commonwealth. Examples being Karen Ricca, Esquire and Tracey Potere, Esquire in Montgomery County and Patrick Carmody, Esquire in Chester County.

If you are fortunate enough to be admitted into ARD, you must pull out all the stops to stay in ARD.

There is very often confusion and questions regarding these suspensions.  Firstly, the Court does not actually order the suspension.  The suspension is done by “administratively” by PennDot, who will send out a suspension notice to the young person once they are notified of the conviction.  Only when the minor gets their mail a few weeks later will they discover they have been suspended.  Secondly, the District Justice and/or the arresting officer very often do not advise the minor that a suspension will flow from the conviction since the Court is not the agency imposing it.  Take all the above into account and you very often end up with a young man or woman that leaving the courthouse with a conviction that he or she has no idea will suspend their driver’s license or privilege.

“To be forewarned is to be forearmed” as they say.  Understand the consequences.  If you or your child receive a ticket pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A. 6308 (know the number), one would be well served to contact an underage drinking attorney so they may have their rights explained to them and to also decide the best course to taken in dealing with it.   The right to drive a car, for many, is just too important to give up without a fight.

• The applicant had previously been admitted into ARD;
• The offense involved an extremely high blood alcohol content;
• The offense involved an accident;
• The driver had a suspended driver’s license or not licensed at all during the time of the offense;
• The driver had a child or children in the vehicle.

And these are just some of the reasons why an ARD application by someone accused of DUI can be denied and the reasons can, and do, vary from county to county.  The good news is that an experienced DUI lawyer that is well versed and experienced in dealing with ARD DUI cases can often be the difference in whether the accused will get ARD.

Very often the accused will apply for ARD without the representation of an experienced DUI attorney.  This is understandable in this bad economic period and many people are looking to save money where they can.  But when an ARD application is denied, the need for effective counsel to fight for them becomes crucial.  In many cases, the DUI lawyer who is well acquainted with the ARD system is able to file what is called a “Motion For Reconsideration Of ARD Denial” and advocate successfully to the DA’s office why the merits of the applicant’s situation may override why reason the DA is seeking to exclude them in the first place.  This is no pipe dream – the injection of a skilled attorney into the proceedings “post ARD denial” very often will result in the DA’s office reversing course, thus saving the client his driving privileges and jail time, and opening the door for an eventual dismissal and expungement of the client’s DUI charge.

If you are in this position, you can always pick up the phone and call my office at 610-239-8870, for a free assessment regarding an ARD reconsideration as well as all things ARD and DUI, or contact me through the website

According to court papers, the 28-year-old had a blood-alcohol content of 0.22 when he was involved in the one-vehicle crash on Wartman Road close to Township Line Road in Perkiomen on January 22.

This was reportedly the driver’s second DUI offense, but his attorney was able to work out a plea agreement with prosecutors that was accepted by the judge. Under the plea agreement, the man will be eligible for the work release program as he serves his time. As a condition, the judge also ordered the man to serve 48 hours of community service.

Additionally under the plea agreement, several other charges against the man were dropped, including driving an unregistered vehicle, disregarding traffic lane, speeding, abandoning a vehicle on private property and careless and reckless driving.

According to the arrest warrant, the 28-year-old left his car on someone’s lawn after crashing into the tree and began walking northbound on Wartman Road. He was soon discovered by police, who had been dispatched to the area after the accident was reported.

Police said that the man admitted to crashing the vehicle and said that he had “slid on some ice,” according to the arrest warrant. However, the officers said they detected alcohol on the man and he was taken into custody.

After an investigation, it was determined that the man had been speeding northbound on Wartman Road when he lost control of the car, swerved to the other lane and swerved back the opposite way off of the road, the criminal complaint stated.

Source: Montgomerynews.com, “Collegeville man sentenced in DUI crash,” Carl Hessler, Jr., Aug. 30, 2011.

As we recently reported, law enforcement agencies throughout the country are taking part in a DUI crackdown that will run through Labor Day, which is this coming weekend. The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration’s slogan for the campaign is: “Drive Sober, or Get Pulled Over.”

Pennsylvania drivers planning to cross the Delaware River into New York over the holiday weekend should be especially aware as it was reported that the police in Pennsylvania and New York are teaming up for heightened DUI patrol on the border as part of the national DUI campaign’s Border to Border initiative.

The Eastern Pike Regional Police based in Matamoras, Pennsylvania, and the Port Jervis, New York, Police Department, which are both located on the Delaware River, will be on heightened patrol and will be on the lookout for certain issues that are unique to the area.

One of these issues is that bars in New York close later than bars in Pennsylvania, so people looking to extend their night of partying by crossing the border should plan ahead to have a sober driver.

Additionally, “Pennsylvania has seen a lot of people go into New York after the bars close in Pennsylvania, continue to drink and then drive back to Pennsylvania,” a regional DUI coordinator out of Pennsylvania said.

Police officials from both departments said that there will be sobriety checkpoints and roving patrols during the nationwide crackdown that continues through the holiday weekend. But they also said that both departments will continue their efforts to prevent drunk driving long after the national campaign comes to an end.

Source: Mid Hudson News, “NY/PA police team up for border to border DWI patrols,” Aug. 23, 2011.