On April 16, 2010, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted Attorney Andrew Shubin’s petition for allocatur in Commonwealth v. Zortman, a 2006 drug trafficking case prosecuted by the Attorney General’s office. The Supreme Court will hear argument on whether Zortman, the then girlfriend of a Clearfield County drug dealer, should be hit with a five year mandatory minimum state prison sentence based upon the presence of an inoperable firearm in the residence. Shubin, who represented Zortman in the appellate proceedings, expects the case to be briefed and argued before the end of the year.

By Alyssa Owens

Although an extensive debate between Penn State Judicial Affairs and Olivia Guevara ended last week, the motives behind her prosecution are still being questioned.

Over the past five months, Guevara, a graduate student in the department of labor, has repeatedly challenged Penn State’s decision to prosecute her for vandalism and accused the university of singling her out to squelch her anti-sweatshop activism.

The battle has grown to involve 48 professors, labor departments from other universities, labor unions, concerned students from across the country and a local attorney who said Guevara’s First Amendment rights were at risk.

The charges stem from an incident on Sept. 27, when Guevara and several other activists chalked anti-sweatshop messages on several university buildings, including Old Main. Criminal charges against Guevara were dismissed because of a lack of evidence. However, Judicial Affairs asked for damage fees and issued a seven-year citation on her academic record.

Penn State officials have maintained that Guevara’s Judicial Affairs hearing was fair and that her prosecution was solely a matter of vandalism.

(more…)

What follows is the Order of the United States District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania, granting the defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. December 22, 2006

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
Pending before the Court are various suppression motions filed by the above-named Defendants in this action. The pending motions are as follows: Defendant Leon Glaspie’s Motion to Suppress (doc. 49) filed on December 1, 2005; Defendant Jerome George’s Motion to Suppress (doc. 66) filed on February 23, 2006; Defendant Leon Glaspie’s Supplemental Suppression Motion (doc. 87) filed on March 17, 2006; Defendant Jerome George’s Supplemental Suppression Motion (doc. 102) filed on April 4, 2006 and; Defendant Leon Glaspie’s Second Supplemental Motion to Suppress (doc. 109) filed on April 17, 2006.
By previous Order of Court dated October 10, 2006 we granted Defendant Markeif Fields’ and Jerome Georges’ individual Motions to join in their co-Defendant Leon Glaspie’s suppression motions. (Rec. Doc. 242).

(more…)

Jun. 29, 2006 –The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Pennsylvania prison policy yesterday, saying that officials have the legal authority to keep mainstream newspapers and magazines from the most incorrigible inmates. (more…)

SCI Greene inmates contacted several well-known civil rights lawyers before and during the department inquiry in a bid to persuade one to file a class-action lawsuit on their behalf over prison conditions. But the state’s discipline and personnel actions amid the probe beat them to the punch. (more…)

PLEASANT GAP, Pa. - After four lawyers and $14,000 in legal bills, a 63-year-old Pleasant Gap man who doesn’t like it hot has been cleared on an indecent exposure conviction.

A state appeals court last week overturned the indecent exposure conviction of Charles Stitzer, who was wearing only shoes and a watch while gardening in his back yard nearly two years ago when he was arrested after a neighbor complained to police.

Is he happy?

“You’re damn right, you better believe it the strain I’ve been under,” Stitzer said Monday. “It’s been a hell of a load on my mind. It’s been a big financial drain.”

The decision was filed last week by a three-judge Superior Court panel, which directed Centre County Court to acquit Stitzer, who lives at 217 E. College Ave. in Pleasant Gap.

Stitzer was observed nude in his back yard by a neighbor, Pam Watkins, from a distance of 60 to 65 yards at sunset on June 22, 2000. Watkins could not be reached for comment Monday.

Stitzer’s case at first was dismissed at a preliminary hearing by District Justice Brad P. Lunsford, but he was rearrested and convicted at a December 2000 jury trial presided over by Centre County President Judge Charles C. Brown Jr.

After Stitzer was convicted, Brown sentenced him in January 2001 to two years probation.

The appeals court said backyard nudity observed from such a distance at sunset did not satisfy an element of the law that requires others to be present for indecent exposure to occur.

“We vacate the conviction and remand for the trial court to enter a judgment of acquittal,” the appeals court ruled last week.

State College lawyer Andrew Shubin, who represented Stitzer in the appeal, said the appellate court decision upheld a broad civil liberty, especially significant since the issue of civil liberties has come under new scrutiny since Sept. 11.

“The principle that’s important here is that a person has a right to do on his property things that he may not have a right to do in public,” Shubin said. “If you don’t like what you see, you avert your eyes.

“If he had done that at a baseball game, it would have been different,” Shubin said.

Assistant District Attorney Lance Marshall, who prosecuted Stitzer, said Monday that he does not plan to appeal the appellate court judgment.

Stitzer, a retired mechanical draftsman, said he likes to keep cool on hot summer evenings, sometimes wears a thong and often sat out nude on his side porch in the dark, though neighbors’ floodlights have lately lit up the night.

“Why sit out there with those hot shorts on?” Stitzer said. “Why shouldn’t I sit out there without anything on?”

In nine days, a trio of strangers, chosen in secrecy, will arrive at the large, white prison that sits on a hillside here. Shortly before 10 p.m., they will insert catheters into both of Keith Zettlemoyer’s arms, pump poison into his veins and kill him. (more…)

Leon Cassady remembers the day his turn came. (more…)

In nine days, a trio of strangers, chosen in secrecy, will arrive at the large, white prison that sits on a hillside here. Shortly before 10 p.m., they will insert catheters into both of Keith Zettlemoyer’s arms, pump poison into his veins and kill him. (more…)

When did the U.S. attorney’s office know about the statewide grand jury investigation that led to the arrest last month of two Williamsport police officers on corruption charges? (more…)