The Housing Projects Ambush

The client was accused of ambushing a rival drug dealer as he left an apartment at a housing project in Pittsburgh. The shooting was recorded on video surveillance cameras. The surveillance video showed the shooter take a position behind a wall and then he waited for the victim to leave the apartment. Some time passed, and then the victim could be seen leaving the apartment. The shooter moved from behind the wall, fired several shots, the victim fell, and the shooter fled in the opposite direction towards a wooded area.

A different security camera showed the defendant and a group of friends getting into a car, which was near the area of the shooting, about ten minutes later. The defendant was wearing different clothing than the clothes worn by the shooter, though the sneakers appeared to be similar if not identical.

The police were able to identify the vehicle because the license plate could be seen on the surveillance video. The police questioned the registered owner and were able to identify the people who were in the vehicle when it left the area of the shooting.

The police charged the defendant with 1st degree murder. The Commonwealth’s star witness against the defendant was a local prostitute who had provided testimony in other cases. Attorney Sontz challenged the witness’s credibility and motivation for testifying against the defendant. Attorney Sontz also successfully argued to exclude certain video evidence that had not been disclosed by the Commonwealth in a timely manner.

During the charging conference to determine the jury instructions, the judge asked Attorney Sontz if he would request a charge on 3rd degree murder. If this charge had been given, the jury could acquit the defendant of 1st degree murder, which carried a mandatory life prison sentence, but could then find the defendant guilty of 3rd degree murder, which carried a maximum sentence of 20-40 years. In some cases, it is prudent to ask the jury to compromise on a verdict to avoid the most serious charge, but in this case, the defendant, with Attorney Sontz’s advice and counsel, decided that he wanted to argue for a full acquittal.

The client and Attorney Sontz held their ground, and made the very unorthodox decision to refuse the 3rd degree instruction. It was a significant gamble, but it ultimately paid off for the defendant…

The jury found him NOT GUILTY of all counts.