This case involves three separate jury trials for one client.

Case 1: The client was charged with home-invasion armed robbery. The prosecution alleged that the defendant and an unidentified codefendant broke into a house, held the people inside at gunpoint, violently assaulted the homeowner, and ransacked the house looking for money and property. The homeowner knew the defendant and identified him as one of the perpetrators.

Case 2: In a separate case, the client was charged with violating the conditions of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). The defendant was subject to the SORNA requirements because of a previous conviction for a sex offense (Attorney Sontz did not represented the defendant on that case).

Arrest warrants were signed and filed for each case.

Case 3: On a very cold night, the fugitive task force, which included Allegheny County Sheriffs and Pittsburgh Police officers, set out to serve the warrants and arrest the defendant. A member of the task force located the defendant walking outside on the street carrying a bag of laundry. The officer attempted to arrest him. The defendant fled into a house, and ran into the pitch-black basement. Other members of the task force arrived at the house into which the defendant fled. They ordered him to come out and surrender, but the defendant did not comply with their commands. The police sent a police dog (K9) into the pitch-black basement to apprehend the defendant. The K9 located the defendant and attacked him with his teeth, as it was trained to do. Several members of the task force followed the K9 into the basement. The defendant attempted to fight off the K9. The police officers joined the effort to apprehend the defendant. Unfortunately, the defendant retrieved a pocket knife and stabbed the K9 and at least one police officer. The officer was not critically injured, but the K9 died from the wounds.

As a result of the fight in the basement, the defendant was charged with felony burglary for illegally entering the house, and several counts of assault on police officers, assault on a police animal (contrary to popular parlance, under Pennsylvania law, police animals are NOT police officers), resisting arrest, flight to avoid apprehension, etc. Though Case 3 occurred after the other two cases, it was the first case to go to trial, probably because it had received a fair amount of pretrial publicity.

At the conclusion of the trial for Case 3, the jury found the defendant NOT GUILTY of the most serious offense— the felony burglary charge, but convicted him of the other crimes.

The defendant still had two additional pending cases— the home-invasion robbery and the SORNA violation. These two cases were the reason why the defendant had active arrest warrants in the first place. It was the active arrest warrants that began the chain of events that led to the fight with the police, sheriffs, and the K9 in the basement.

Notwithstanding the pretrial publicity generated from the death of the K9, the home-invasion robbery charge was the most serious because it carried the most potential prison time. It was a first degree felony with potentially a deadly weapon enhancement.

Furthermore, defendants very rarely proceed to jury trials on SORNA charges because the elements of the offense permit the prosecution to inform the jury that the defendant has a prior conviction for a sex offense. Defense attorneys fear that knowledge of the prior sex offense will prejudice the jury against the defendant. The jury might then find the defendant guilty simply because of his criminal history, rather than the evidence presented at trial.

However, Attorney Sontz is an unconventional lawyer. Notwithstanding the fear of prejudice from the defendant’s sex offender status, Attorney Sontz and his client proceeded to two separate trials on the robbery and the SORNA cases.

First, Attorney Sontz and his client tried the home-invasion robbery case. The jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY on all counts.

Next, Attorney Sontz and his client tried the SORNA case. The jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY on the single SORNA violation.

Ironically, the defendant was acquitted of all the charges that caused the arrest warrants to be filed against him in the first place. If only the defendant had surrendered to the task force…