CIVIL VERDICTS - PREMISES LIABILITY * Estate of Joan DeMarco v. The Marquis - Decedent business tenant of apartment/office complex owner murdered by former employee of defendant in violent assault during office burglary. Plaintiff's estate alleged negligent security theory of liability against defendant. Settlement negotiated with responsible insurance company in excess of One Million Two Hundred Thousand ($1,200,000.00) Dollars prior to trial. * Khaled Bakar v. Home Properties, Inc. - Plaintiff was standing on third floor balcony of friend's apartment owned by defendant, when the floor suddenly collapsed causing plaintiff to fall to ground. Plaintiff sustained fractured ribs, non-displaced tibia fracture and herniated disc, which was treated with physical therapy and multiple epidural injections. Montgomery County jury returned a verdict in the amount of Seven Hundred and Sixty Nine Thousand ($769,000.00) Dollars. Plaintiff filed Motion for Delay Damages which was granted and case was settled for Nine Hundred Thousand ($900,000.00) Dollars. * CIVIL VERDICTS - AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENTS * Riccardo v. Kim - Plaintiff sustained fractured cervical vertebrae at C5-6 level which required two surgeries and metal screws, arising from a two vehicle automobile accident. Out-of-court settlement negotiated with responsible insurance carriers in amount of Four Hundred Thousand ($400,000.00) Dollars prior to trial. * Estate of Robert Kane v. Joseph Falco - Decedent killed while passenger in one-car accident where intoxicated driver lost control of vehicle. Wrongful death claim settlement negotiated with responsible insurance company in the amount of Six Hundred and Sixty Thousand ($660,000.00) Dollars prior to trial. * Vinnie Moss v. Baldi Transportation/Erie Insurance Company - Plaintiff awarded Two Hundred Thirty Five Thousand ($235,000.00) Dollars by jury after trial. Defendant trucking company bankrupt and uninsured. Uninsured motorist claim settlement negotiated with plaintiff's insurance company in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand ($200,00.00) Dollars. * CIVIL VERDICTS - LIQUOR LIABILITY * Gerald & Irene Kane v. Dublin Wine and Spirits and Commonwealth of PA - Plaintiff husband and wife sustained multiple injuries in head-on collision with drunk driver. Husband-plaintiff sustained head injury resulting in brain hemorrhage and coma, with substantial recovery. Wife-plaintiff sustained broken ankle. Out-of-court settlement successfully negotiated against defendants prior to trial. Husband's claim - Two Hundred Forty Thousand ($240,000.00) Dollars. Wife's claim - Ninety Thousand ($90,000.00) Dollars. (Bucks County)* Edward Pisarek v. Adriatric Club - Plaintiff police officer assaulted while on duty by intoxicated bar patron skilled in martial arts. Plaintiff sustained permanent partial hearing loss and multiple lacerations. Non-jury trial verdict in favor of plaintiff and against defendant in amount of One Hundred Fifty Thousand ($150,000.00) Dollars. (Philadelphia County) CIVIL VERDICTS - PRODUCT LIABILITY* Keith Rosenberger v. Galoob Toys, Inc. - Plaintiff sustained temporary partial loss of vision in one eye with increased risk of future glaucoma, when struck in eye by defendants' children's toy, while plaintiff demonstrated newly purchased toy for child. Out-of-court settlement successfully negotiated against defendants in the amount of One Hundred Fifty Thousand ($150,000.00) Dollars prior to trial. (Montgomery County)* Raymond Cost v. Caterpillar, Inc. - Plaintiff sustained partial amputation of his lower leg, when his foot was crushed in an unguarded pinchpoint of rotating couplings inside engine area, while plaintiff was performing maintenance of defendant's heavy trash compactor/metal shearer. Out-of-court settlement successfully negotiated against defendant in the amount of Four Hundred Seventy Five Thousand ($475,000.00) Dollars prior to trial. (Montgomery County)

(‘SORNA”) Is Unlawful as Applied to Juveniles

Post by admin on January 22, 2015

The split decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court last week to strike down the Pennsylvania Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”) as unconstitutional in its application to juveniles means that a large classification of juvenile sexual offenders will no longer be required to register for life as sexual offenders with the Pennsylvania State Police. In re B.J., a minor, 87 MAP 2013

Norristown, PA (PRWEB) January 03, 2015

In its pronouncement on December 29, 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that juvenile sexual offenders are not necessarily likely to commit future sexual offenses and may be rehabilitated through treatment, contrary to the irrebuttable presumption contained within the (“SORNA”) statute that its designated class of juvenile offenders are always likely to sexually re-offend. 42 Pa C.S. Sec. 9799.15(a)(4). This important conclusion of the Court was its basis for declaring that the Pennsylvania Sexual Offender and Notification Act (“SORNA”) as applied to juvenile sexual offenders violates the juveniles’ Constitutional due process rights. U.S. CONST. amend. XIV Sect. 1. The Court pointed out that (“SORNA”) does not afford sexual offenders the opportunity of a hearing to rebut the statute’s irrebuttable presumption. Additionally, its decision cited extensive research studies relied upon by the lower court that indicated that recidivism rates for juvenile sex offenders are far lower than the recidivism rates of adult sexual offenders. In re: J.B., a minor, et al., No. CP-67-JV-726-2010 (CP York Nov. 1. 2013) (“Tr. Ct. Op.”).    Juvenile sexual offenders in Pennsylvania whose sexual offenses fell within the purview of (“SORNA”) will now no longer be required to register with the Pennsylvania State Police which would also automatically trigger inclusion of the juvenile on the National Sexual Offender Registry. 42 U.S.C. Sect. 16911(8). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s recent holding seems consistent with the statutory policy objective of the Pennsylvania Juvenile Act which is grounded on the treatment and rehabilitation of children who violate the law. 42 Pa. C.S. Sect. 6301. McMahon, a well-known trial lawyer from Norristown, Pennsylvania commented that “it is no surprise that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down (“SORNA”) on due process grounds based on its unfounded premise that juvenile sexual offenders are not amenable to rehabilitation but will likely commit future sexual offenses.” John I. McMahon, Jr., Esquire, is a former Montgomery County prosecutor and managing partner at the law firm of McMahon, McMahon and Lentz, Norristown, Pennsylvania who regularly provides legal commentary to the media in a high profile criminal cases.

Filed under: Uncategorized
Leave a Reply