The client was 15 years old at the time of the offense. He and a group of three other friends, all juveniles, contacted an adult, and together they formulated a plan to rob a local marijuana dealer. One of the juvenile codefendants knew the drug dealer from school. Unfortunately, the adult brought a gun and murdered the drug dealer during the course of the robbery.

The defendant was charged as an adult with murder based on a theory of felony murder (which is also called 2nd degree murder), accomplice liability and conspiracy. Attorney Sontz petitioned the court to decertify the case to the juvenile division, but the petition was denied. One of the juveniles was not charged at all even though he was engaged in the exact same conduct as the defendant and was just as involved in the conspiracy. Another juvenile was decertified by agreement with the Commonwealth even though he was just as culpable as the defendant. This case presents a textbook example of how arbitrary decisions made by prosecutors can result in extremely different criminal justice outcomes. This is something to consider the next time the District Attorney in your county is up for re-election.

The defendant proceeded to a jury trial. The adult codefendant also proceeded to trial before the same jury. The 4th juvenile codefendant proceeded to a non-jury trial at the same time as the two codefendants. At the conclusion of the jury trial, the jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY of first and second degree murder, but found the defendant guilty of 3rd degree murder and robbery. He was sentenced to 14-30 years in prison. The adult codefendant was found guilty of 2nd degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. The 4th juvenile was found guilty of 3rd degree murder and sentenced to 14-30 years.

The defendant appealed the conviction and was granted a new trial. Attorney Sontz retried the case, and in the second trial the jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY on the murder charge, but found him guilty of robbery, which was the correct verdict based on the evidence.

After the second trial, the defendant was sentenced to 5-10 years. At the time of the resentencing he had already served about 4 1/2 years, so he was eligible for parole about 6 months after the new sentence was imposed.