Home  >  Best Homicide Lawyers

Justin J. McShane, Esq. | The McShane Firm, LLC

from Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile[91]

Attorney JD, San Francisco CA

This Pennsylvania lawyer rocks – you should not miss an interview with Justin should you need a consultation about a DUI or criminal case. Mr. McShane and his crew continue to fight cases w/ knowledge and experience.

from Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile[92]

Attorney DG, Plano TX

Justin is an excellent advocate for his clients. He has a keen knowledge of both the law and the science related to DUI/DWI cases. I would not hesitate to refer a client to him.

from Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile[93]

Attorney AT, Carrollton GA

Justin’s nickname is “The Library.” For someone of his age his encyclopedic command of the scientific literature was at first quite surprising. But he keeps producing, and after awhile I began to assume that Justin would have the answer. Thing about it: he always does.

from Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile[94]

Attorney BL, Overland Park KS

I have gotten to know Justin McShane through the National College for DUI Defense and have seen him rise to a highly respected position. He is one of the first people I turn to for advise and brainstorming on my most difficult cases.

from Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile[95]

Attorney DR, Wheaton IL

Justin McShane is one of the most knowledgeable, well-liked, and creative DUI/DWI defense attorneys in the country. I do not hesitate in stating that clients would be well-advided to hire Justin McShane and his firm for any case.

from Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile[96]

Attorney MD, Eureka CA

Justin has an incredible ability to understand and provide necessary assistance related to complex issues of law and science, particularly as related to DUI/DWI law.

from Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile[97]

Attorney RL, Marietta GA

Justin is one of the most creative and well prepared lawyers that I know. Whenever I have a complex legal question, Justin is one of the guys I go to first. Good friend, Great lawyer.

from Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile[98]

Attorney KC, The Woodlands TX

Justin McShane is the lawyer that other lawyers go to for answers to their difficult cases. His work ethic and knowledge set him apart from others. I highly recommend him.

from Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile[99]

Attorney EL, Glendale AZ

Justin McShane and I are both long-time members of the National College for DUI Defense. Justin is well respected as one of our most scientifically knowledgeable members and enjoys a national reputation as one of the finest DUI lawyers in the country.

from Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile[100]

Attorney WH, Atlanta GA

Justin brings a yearning to succeed to the table as a criminal defense attorney. He trains himself and his staff attorneys at the highest level to be ready to attack any flaw in the State’s case or any prevarication by a police officer who guesses that Justin will not have found the “smoking gun” in the case. This pride of preparation is not something that can be taught to a trial lawyer — it is self-generated. Justin has earned my endorsement through hard work and dogged determination to be the best attorney in Pennsylvania.

from Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile[101]

Attorney PB, Birmingham MI

Justin is fast becoming known nationally as a top DUI defender. He is gaining this reputation by sharing his knowledge and his access to scientific works with other lawyers, thereby demonstrating his commitment both to the profession as well as to his clients. Justin has an excellent understanding of the law and science involved in drunk driving defense, and he will do everything possible to win his client’s case. If Justin agrees to take your case then you can rest assured that he will leave nothing to chance, and will do everything to maximize your chances of winning. I highly recommend him.

from Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile[102]

Attorney AA, Upper Marlboro MD


Justin McShane has had unparalleled success in defending DUI and criminal cases in central Pennsylvania. As a former Public Defender, he is not afraid of taking on prosecutors and tough or seemingly hopeless cases. Justin is one of the top people in the Country with respect to knowledge about hospital blood tests and demonstrates his knowledge through thorough cross examination of experts and hospital staff. He is tireless on behalf of his clients and has a tremendous track record. I would not hesitate to recommend him to anyone charged with a DUI in central Pennsylvania.

from Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile[103]

Attorney WB, Biddeford ME

Justin is one of the best DWI attorneys I know. Period. If I were unfortunate enough to find myself on the wrong side of the law, Justin McShane is the first and only attorney I would turn to. His breadth of knowledge and commitment to his clients is truly amazing. He is a tireless and zealous advocate who has developed a reputation for fearlessness in the courtroom. When any attorney has a question regarding DWI work, Justin always has the answer. He is without peer in Pennsylvania and I count myself fortunate to count him as not only a colleague, but a very good friend as well.

from Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile[104]

Attorney SH, Lubbock TX

Attorney Justin McShane is a powerful advocate for his clients. He is always prepared and very successful in the courtroom. His scientific knowledge and preparation is amazing. He knows and understands science and can apply it in a “common sense” approach way that jurors and judges can understand. Without a doubt, Justin McShane is a TRIAL ATTORNEY. He fights hard for all his clients and works tirelessly. If you need a Criminal Defense/ DWI attorney in Justin’s area, there is nobody else that I would hire.

from Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile[105]

Attorney BR, Baltimore MD

I endorse this lawyer’s work. I have known Justin now for a while, and while I agree he might want to do something about his picture I can say with great enthusiasm he is one of the most motivated and detailed lawyers I know. He is constantly pushing himself and his team forward in the unending quest for legal knowledge; not only does he attend continuing education seminars regularly but he provides the same training for his people. Additionally, he puts on his own seminars for the benefit of other lawyers. He is very well versed and aggressive. Excellent choice.

from Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile[106]

Attorney DA, Manchester TN

This fine attorney is known and respected throughout this nation. While I do not live in Pennsylvania (I live in Tennessee), I communicate with Attorney McShane on a regular basis. At a recent conference in San Diego California, Attorney McShane was selected to deliver a presentation on how he successfully fought and won a recent case when the government’s chemical test showed Attorney McShane’s client was more that four (4) times the legal limit for blood alcohol. Other presenters included the foremost experts in the world (Sweden, Canada, United States) on DUI/DWI topics. Attorney McShane understands complex topics and can speak about them at length with no preparation. His library of books and artices on issues involved in DUI/DWI is sought after by attorneys throughout the country. I could not give Attorney McShane a higher endorsement. He is truely a hard working and intellectually dominant attorney.

from Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile[107]

Attorney GP, Denver CO

I met Justin through the National College for DUI Defense and attended the most advanced DUI blood testing seminar in the country with him. He is one of the most intelligent and innovative DUI attorneys I have ever met. I would send a family member to him for representation without hesitation. And, as a former DUI police officer, DUI defense investigator, DUI prosecutor, and DUI defense attorney, I know a LOT of DUI attorneys. He’s the best!

from Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile[108]

Attorney TV, Bellvue WA

Justin McShane is quickly gaining a national reputation as an outstanding criminal defense attorney. Regardless of the charge, Justin is a true champion for his clients, even achieving results many other more seaseoned attorneys would find almost impossible. I cannot recomend Justin highly enough. If I were charged with a DUI in Pennsylvania, Justin would be the first lawyer I called.

from Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile[109]

Excellent scientist as well as lawyer. Important in science based cases.

from Attorney McShane’s Martindale profile

He is so much more than a great lawyer. He is also a brilliant scientist and amazing litigator. He is the best DWI attorney in the nation.

from Attorney McShane’s Martindale profile

Superior legal skills and credentials. Best analytical lawyer in the United States – Ranked #1 by peer group in National College for DUI defense in area of forensic testing and examination of blood, breath, urine samples. Excellent teacher and presenter at legal training seminars. One of the most highly qualified DWI/DUI defense lawyers in America. One of the best lawyers in America.

from Attorney McShane’s Martindale profile

Amazing lawyer: Brilliant

from Attorney McShane’s Martindale profile

Mr. McShane is a lawyers lawyer. His work ethic and professionalism is just class. He is well thought of by his peers for his good manners and legal suggestions he makes to aid others.

from Attorney McShane’s Martindale profile

I have known Mr. McShane for over 5 years. He is a skilled litigator and probably the most knowledgeable attorney I know.

from Attorney McShane’s Martindale profile

Justin is considered a top criminal defense attorney among defense attorneys. I have personally run issues by Justin. I recommend an “A” rating for Justin.

from Attorney McShane’s Martindale profile

I have had the good fortune to have known Attorney McShane for four or five years. In nearly forty years of professional life I have worked with two people who early exhibited traits that mark them as leaders in their field and that will go far with unlimited potential. One of those worked for me as a your naval officer, and he is now an admiral in the navy. The other is Attorney McShane. He is one of the most intelligent, dedicated attorney’s I have met and his potential is unlimited.

from Attorney McShane’s Martindale profile

Excellent lawyer! Great teacher for other lawyers.

from Attorney McShane’s Martindale profile

Justin McShane is without peer in the field of Criminal defense and forensic science. His knowledge of chemistry and DUI defense puts him above 99% of all lawyers in the country. I would say he is probably within the best 10 lawyers in the country

from Attorney McShane’s Martindale profile

Attorney McShane has a knowledge and experience base that is without equal in the profession. He is widely considered an expert by prosecutors and defense attorneys alike. He is also a master at blending aggressive representation with the utmost respect for all parties, their witnesses, and the court. In short, Mr. McShane is one of the very best attorneys in the nation.

from Attorney McShane’s Martindale profile

Justin is a terrifically talented lawyer.

from Attorney McShane’s Martindale profile

There is no more knowledgeable attorney in the United States regarding forensic science, specifically as applied to DWI defense, than Justin McShane. He is a reference for attorneys throughout the country. Additionally, his committment to his clients is unyielding. I have met very few attorneys with as much passion, knowledge and skill as Justin McShane.

from Attorney McShane’s Martindale profile

I cant even begin to describe how knowledgeable Mr. McShane is in his area. He is very well known and respected across the nation in the areas of DUI/DWI defense, and in any dealings with forensic science at large. To boot, Mr. McShane is very giving, and presents on multiple topics many, many times a yearin person, through listservs, and via webinars. I have been blown away by his knowledge and approach at his seminars, and truly couldn’t recommend anyone higher in this field.

from Attorney McShane’s Martindale profile

Justin is known nationally and has a great reputation.

from Attorney McShane’s Martindale profile

One of the best scientific based DUI attorneys in the nation

from Attorney McShane’s Martindale profile

You wont find a more dedicated, skilled, or trained lawyer than Justin McShane. When it comes to forensic science and defending a citizen accused of a crime he is one of the nation’s best.

from Attorney McShane’s Martindale profile

Easily the best trained and knowledgeable attorney on this subject in the entire United States. When in a courtroom Justin knows as much, if not more, about DUI law and science as anyone else in the room. Even the experts. Above that he is always there to help fellow lawyers. I can send him an email at 3 in the morning and he is answering my question within minutes. The guy is a machine. It is my honor to endorse Justin

from Attorney McShane’s Martindale profile

Justin is extremely knowledgable and a great resource for other attorneys, as well as a fierce advocate for his clients. He continues to push himself to learn more and fight harder. I have a great deal of respect for him as a person, academic, and attorney.

from Attorney McShane’s Martindale profile

One of the best in the country. I have known Justin for five years. He is a dedicated trial lawyer that has become a scientist in his own right. I constantly rely on his expertise and knowledge. Without hesitation, I would recommend Justin for a PA DUI. Glen Neeley

from Attorney McShane’s Martindale profile

Very smart. Knows his stuff cold.

from Attorney McShane’s Martindale profile

Justin Mc Shane is at the pinacle of DUI/DWI attorneys across the nation.His contributions to the advancement of DUI/DWI defense would be difficult to list in yhis provided space.His command of the science in the DUI/DWI field has him in extremely high demand as an educational provider to the Bench and Bar alike.He has my higest recommandation.

from Attorney McShane’s Martindale profile

Mr. McShanes skills and knowledge are top in our industry. It has been my experience that when other lawyers have issues and questions about cases they seek Mr. McShane’s counsel. He is very open and giving of his time and expertise. He has also created a team of amazing lawyers dedicated to defending their clients. He has directly assisted our firm with clients who have had issues in Pennsylvania. Every time the clients were grateful for his help.

from Attorney McShane’s Martindale profile

A tremendous talent.

from Attorney McShane’s Martindale profile

I am honored to review my friend and colleague, Justin McShane. In addition to possessing the highest ethical standards and a selfless devotion to his clients cases, he is one of the ten most scientifically well qualified DUI/DWI defense attorneys in the country. That he has amassed such a storehouse of knowledge and skills in such a short time as an attorney is a tribute to his education, intelligence, and drive. He is board certified, and without a doubt eminently well qualified.

from Attorney McShane’s Martindale profile

Genius. True genius.

from Attorney McShane’s Martindale profile

Brilliant & outstanding trial lawyer both an impressive student of, and teacher of forensic science practices and procedures. Despite his still (comparatively) young age he has earned the respect and admiration of his peers in both the legal and scientific fields. My asterisk on his communication skills relates to his writing skills which he is continuing to improve, still not yet hit the kind of performance he is striving for. I expect great writing contributions from him in the years to come.

from Attorney McShane’s Martindale profile

Justin McShane is extremely gifted, intelligent and motivated. He is very active in sharing his skills and knowledge with other lawyers. He is becoming a very well respected and sought after speaker for continuing legal education seminars. I rated him lower in experience because he is relatively young in our profession.

from Attorney McShane’s Martindale profile

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has issued a decision in the case of _COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Daniel Eugene LANDIS, II, Appellant,_ 2108 MDA 2012 (April 8, 2014), an appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Juniata County, Judge Kenneth A. Mummah, Criminal Division, CP–34–CR–0000167–2010.The Panel was composed of Judges BENDER, WECHT and FITZGERALD who wrote the Opinion. There was no dissent. The Appellant appealed from a judgment of sentence entered in the Juniata County Court of Common Pleas after a jury found him guilty of, /inter alia,/ DUI-highest rate of alcohol.Appellant claimed that he was entitled to a new trial because the finding that his blood-alcohol level was over .16% within two hours of driving was against the weight of the evidence. The Panel agreed and ruled that the Appellant was entitled to a new trial on the count of DUI[110]—highest rate of alcohol because the blood-alcohol test result of .164%, which was relied on by the Commonwealth, was subject to a 10% margin of error and there was no further evidence to sustain the jury’s finding that his blood alcohol level was .16% or above within two hours of driving. Section 3802(c) of the Motor Vehicle Code provides that: An individual may not drive, operate or be in actual physical control of the movement of a vehicle after imbibing a sufficient amount of alcohol such that the alcohol concentration in the individual’s blood or breath is 0.16% or higher within two hours after the individual has driven, operated or been in actual physical control of the movement of the vehicle. The Superior Court agreed that the jury’s verdict on the count of DUI-highest rate of alcohol was against the weight of the evidence. The evidence that his blood-alcohol level was .164% was unreliable because the medical technician only took one sample of blood and ran only one test. Moreover, the result from an Avid Axsym machine was less accurate than a gas chromatography test, and the evidence at trial established a 10% margin of error in the results from the Avid Axsym machine. The trial record did not contain a reasoned basis for accepting the specific reading of .164% as either accurate or precise. There was no support for a finding that the reading registered by the Avid Axsym machine was any more reliable than the possible blood-alcohol levels within the 10% margin of error. Moreover, since there was no direct or circumstantial evidence regarding the possible applications of the 10% margin of error, the trial evidence required the jury to speculate that Appellant’s actual blood alcohol content was .16% or higher within two hours of driving. Therefore, the Panel held that the Appellant was entitled to a new trial on the count of DUI—highest rate of alcohol.

Commonwealth v. Yohe – The firm once again finds itself involved with the Supreme Court of the United States. We recently filed a petition in the High Court for Writ of Certiorari. This is the case where we argued the NMS labs Henry-Ford-Assembly-line-like forensic science method violates the 6th Amendment’s Confrontation Clause. We presented the following question: The United States Constitution’s Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to a fair trial – including the right to confront “witnesses” against them. Here, the government introduced a forensic toxicology report via a “witness” who reviewed and confirmed laboratory analysts’ work – but did not perform, observe, or have any personal connection with the analysis. Does a “witness” who reviews and confirms others’ work violate the Confrontation Clause” In other words, who is the “witness” against the defendant? At trial, the government did not present the particular witness from NMS Labs who physically conducted the accused’s blood analysis. Instead, the government and NMS presented only the PhD who reviewed the data generated by the particular witness. Trial counsel, The McShane Firm[111]’s own Attorney Shawn Dorward, timely objected—making a complete proffer to preserve the Confrontation Clause error. Attorney Dorward carefully preserved his objection under both federal and state law. The trial court overruled the objection and allowed the “surrogate” witness to testify in lieu of the particular witness. Despite Attorney Dorward’s best efforts, the Judge disagreed with Dorward at trial and returned a guilty verdict for the BAC count, but found the accused not guilty of DUI: General Impairment. Never losing sight of the Constitutional harm, Attorney Dorward again asserted error in a well-written post-sentencing motion and accompanying legal memorandum. Sometimes, judges change their minds. And, upon reviewing the “surrogate’s” testimony and the presented arguments, the trial court agreed the government violated the accused’s Constitutional rights. At the time this all happened, the trial court was bound by the case Commonwealth v. Barton-Martin, which held that a violation of confrontation required the charge at issue to be dismissed. Despite the binding precedent of Barton-Martin, the trial court ordered a new trial as the remedy. Knowing that remedy to be in error in that the proper remedy under Barton-Martin was vacating and discharging the defendant of the conviction, Attorney Dorward filed a motion for reconsideration with the trial court for the remedy. A hearing was scheduled for this motion; however, prior to the court date the government sought appeal of the grant of the new trial. Thus, the government became the appellant. The McShane Firm, LLC became the appellee. After receiving briefs a three justice panel of the Superior Court disagreed with the trial court and overturned the grant of the new trial. In essence the three justices in the Superior Court, in a published opinion, held the testimony of the “surrogate” was sufficient Confrontation for the accused. Attorney Dorward then enlisted the help of Attorneys Justin McShane and Josh Auriemma to perfect a petition for allowance of appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Typically, Pennsylvania’s highest court grants very few of these motions—but the court granted it here. The Court wanted to help guide the issue and hear the lawyers on both sides argue the issue. On that appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, several organizations wrote amicus briefs—“friends of the court”—including: the National College for DUI Defense Attorneys (NCDD); the Pennsylvania Association of Drunk Driving Defense Attorneys (PADDDA); the Pennsylvania Association for Criminal Defense Lawyers (PACDL); and the Philadelphia Defender Association. Ultimately, after the Court received briefs from the accused, the government, and the interested organizations, the case went to oral argument. Attorney Dorward argued the case before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Sadly, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s decision. Following the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s affirmation, The McShane Firm, LLC went to the mat. With the hard work of Attorneys Justin McShane, TC Tanski, and Shawn Dorward as well as Richard Roberts, a law student intern, the firm drafted and filed a Petition for Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. Now that we’ve filed the Petition, it’s up to the United States Supreme Court to either deny the petition or grant it. Once a Petition is granted by the High

In this important case, Dauphin County Judge Lawrence F. Clark ruled that the current calibration methods for Pennsylvania breath testing machines leave the devices inadequate to measure samples outside of the range of 0.05% to 0.15%. The ruling opens the door for thousands of the Highest BAC (over 0.16%) cases to be reviewed. He further ruled that the Intoxilyzer 5000EN breath machine may no longer considered reliable or admissible. This ruling resulted in Pennsylvania State Police halting the use of breath testing statewide in favor of blood testing.
The full order in the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Schildt[112]

A ruling signed by all four judges of the Court of Common Pleas in Lebanon County stated that the blood testing procedure used at Good Samaritan Hospital (GSH) was not acceptable to the court because it deviated from the instructions set forth by the manufacturer of the equipment. In response, Lebanon County District Attorney announced that it would discontinue blood testing at GSH and instead send all blood samples to the state crime lab in Harrisburg for testing.

Lebanon County Blood Testing Ruling[113]

Co-authored with Leonard Stamm, Esquire and Ron Moore, Esquire, the successful joint National College for DUI Defense, Inc. and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers’ amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Bullcoming v. New Mexico 09-10876. On June 23, 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States sided with Bullcoming and the amicus brief issuing a sweeping opinion that affirmed the arguments presented by Bullcoming and amici counsel creating “The Particular Witness Rule.”

Commonwealth v. Curtis Williams (–A.3d–) Mr. Williams was acquitted by a jury of the charge of criminal attempt homicide, but guilty of the charge of Aggravated Assault. The defense theory of the case was that the alleged victim was the aggressor, and Mr. Williams was acting in his own self-defense and in defense of his two young children when the much larger able body alleged victim engaged in road rage. The trial court granted the Commonwealth’s pre-trial motion to preclude the defense from introducing evidence that the alleged victim was drunk (BAC of 0.15) and driving while drunk. A sharply divided panel (2-1) of the Superior Court agreed with the trial court. In a rare move, the Superior Court granted an en banc review of the panel’s decision. Less than 20 cases per year are accepted for en banc review by the Superior Court.

Commonwealth v. Karns 50 A.3d 158 (2012) (PDF) Mr. Karns was found guilty of DUI Highest Rate (BAC above .16%) by the trial court upon evidence from a blood test that reported his BAC to be .189%. At trial the Bedford County District Attorney’s Office presented Christine Ickes, the medical lab scientist from the UPMC Bedford Memorial Hospital who prepared and analyzed Mr. Karns’ blood sample. As the test was done on non-whole blood, a conversion factor accepted by the scientific community must be presented under Pennsylvania Law. The prosecution did not present any evidence of a conversion factor. During his cross-examination, Attorney McShane exposed the lack of a whole blood conversion factor before the trial court. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the appeal and found that without a valid conversion factor, the evidence presented by the Commonwealth was insufficient for the per se conviction and overturned the conviction for the charge of DUI- highest rate of alcohol. The holding of the court was as follows:

  • Supernate is not whole blood;
  • Simply having a witness say it is whole blood is not “good enough” no matter how many times they insist that it is;
  • Any form of non-whole blood expression for BAC must be converted back to whole blood;
  • Saying there is a conversion factor automatically or somehow is not good enough;
  • A dilution factor is not a conversion factor; and
  • Absent an expert (or admissible testimony) as to conversion, there is insufficient evidence to support a per se based conviction for DUI)

[114]

Commonwealth v. Zerphey (936 MDA 2009)[115] After Mr. Zerphey was originally charged with a violation of section 3802(a)(1) (being incapable of safe driving) and 3802(c) (DUI Highest Rate with BAC over 0.16), Mr. Zerphey was found not guilty at trial as to the incapable of safe driving count, but guilty as to the lesser charge of DUI high Rate (BAC greater than 0.10 but less than 0.16). At trial Attorney McShane argued that the testing method of the Good Samaritan Hospital did not result in a whole blood BAC expression. Pennsylvania law requires that the BAC be an expression of whole blood. Post-sentencing motions were denied by the trial court. The panel of Justice at the Superior Court agreed with Attorney McShane’s original contention that scientifically and factually the result that produced by the Good Samaritan Hospital is not that of whole blood and that no conversion factor was introduced as required. As a result, the Superior Court overturned the conviction. Mr. Zerphey was totally acquitted of all charges.

Commonwealth v. Longenecker (PDF)[116] After a finding of guilt as to the DUI per se charge of having a BAC above 0.16, the lawyers at the McShane Firm argued in a post-sentencing motion that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain a conviction as to this most serious count of DUI. The trial court agreed and overturned the conviction. In doing so the trial court evaluated the Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) testing used in Lebanon County and held that the BAC testing that is used in is an indirect enzymatic test of the supernate. It is not a test of an accused’s whole blood. When the non-whole blood is tested, the scientific community acknowledges that the result is not only inaccurate but inflated and over-reported as was argued in court. Pennsylvania DUI law requires that there be a BAC based upon whole blood, not what was tested by Good Samaritan Hospital. This type of scientific-based challenge has been advanced before with success leading the WellSpan-related and later the Geisenger-related hospitals to stop offering testing in their hospitals for police prosecution. On November 12, 2009, the hospitals issued a press release announcing this[117]. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania, who evaluates trial court decisions, has repeatedly found this method to be insufficient as a matter of law. (A recent unpublished opinion[118] and a published one- Commonwealth v. Renninger, 682 A.2d 356 (Pa. Super. 1996)) For greater information, you are referred to The McShane Firm’s Pennsylvania DUI Law Blog[119].

Commonwealth v. Lutz (PDF)[120] At trial the District Attorney’s Office presented the lab technologist from the Good Samaritan Hospital (GHS) who performed chemical testing on Mr. Lutz’s blood. The GHS staff reported the results as a whole blood result. After skillful cross-examination, the Attorneys of the McShane Firm exposed this assertion that it was a whole blood result as being inaccurate. Under Pennsylvania law in order for there to be a conviction, an accused’s Blood Alcohol Content must be expressed in terms of whole blood. A Motion for Judgment of Acquittal was made and granted by the trial court resulting in the per se DUI count being dismissed.

Commonwealth v. Jennifer Barton Martin[121] (5 A.2d 363, 2010 PA Super 163, certiorari denied) The Superior Court of Pennsylvania, a three judge panel with no dissenting opinions held that the Supreme Court of the United States opinion in Melendez Diaz applied even though the accused subpoenaed the technologist and the phlebotomist presenting both in our case-in-chief. The clear ruling states the following:

  1. Melendez Diaz is retroactively applied.
  2. Under Federal Constitutional Confrontation Clause rights, the Commonwealth during its case-in-chief must call the analyst. It expressly overruled Carter and Kravontka which were our state¹s previous precedent.
  3. Failure to do #2 even if the defense in its case calls the analyst, does not cure Confrontation violation.
  4. A result is not a new trial, but vacating of the conviction with jeopardy.

The Court ruled as follows: ³Because the Commonwealth did not summon at trial the analyst who prepared Appellant¹s lab report, we conclude that Appellant¹s rights under the Confrontation Clause were violated and that the lab report showing her blood-alcohol content was inadmissible. Without that evidence, Appellant¹s conviction under § 3802(c) cannot stand and we therefore vacate her judgment of sentence as to that offense.²

Commonwealth v. Angel Valle-Valez[122] (995 A.2d 1264, 2010 PA Super 99) The Superior Court of Pennsylvania held as a matter of first impression, spousal privilege applied to testimony of defendant’s wife, even though the couple had separated, no longer held themselves out to be married, and had filed for divorce, and spousal privilege is not limited to confidential communications. Defendant was the ³lawful spouse² of his estranged wife, for purposes of spousal privilege, even though defendant and his wife had separated, no longer held themselves out to be married, and had filed for divorce, and defendant’s wife had become engaged to another man; filing of divorce complaint did nothing to affect the marriage under the law absent entry of divorce decree, and plain statutory language would not be disregarded in pursuit of the spirit of the privilege. A spouse does not waive the spousal privilege by sharing the nature of the information with third parties. Where the spousal privilege applies, the witness may refuse to testify and may not be compelled to take the stand. Spousal privilege is not limited to confidential communications.

Commonwealth v. Christina Houtz[123] (982 A.2d 537; 2009 PA Super 186) The Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that in a sex offender case that a blanket probation condition that prohibited defendant from possessing or having access to a computer, or otherwise accessing the Internet, was unduly restrictive and unreasonable, in prosecution for corruption of a minor and indecent assault; there was no evidence that defendant’s offense was facilitated by or incorporated the use of a computer or the internet.

Commonwealth v. Justin Tobery[124] (908 MDA 2009) The Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that a two vehicle accident involving serious bodily injury of the other motorist on an icy road where the officer noticed an odor of alcohol alone with no other indicia of intoxication present was insufficient probable cause to arrest for a DUI.

Commonwealth v. Darius Jeffries (579 Pa. 539, 857 A.2d 671) the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted allocator for argument in this case.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs. Shawn Seif: (1265 MDA 2002)[125]: Shawn Seif was charged with Resisting Arrest, Disorderly Conduct and Obstruction of Justice. Factually, he lived in a multi-unit apartment complex with a locked front door. The police received a 911 hang-up call from a alleged domestic assault involving a unit other than Mr. Seif’s. The police arrived at the locked front door and commanded that Seif open it. Seif denied them entry. He was arrested. Despite our best efforts both in pretrial motions and during trial, all pretrial motions to dismiss were denied and he was convicted by a Jury of all charges. Upon appeal, in an unpublished opinion of a panel of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, the conviction was overturned and the case was discharged. The panel of the Superior Court agreed with Attorney McShane’s original position that the charges were not proper to begin with- in that: (1) the private common room hallway where the alleged Disorderly Conduct occurred was not a public place which is an essential element to support a Disorderly Conduct charge; (2) failing to open a door upon a police command is not an affirmative act as is necessary to sustain a conviction for Obstruction of Justice charge; and (3) a refusal to turn around and put his hands behind his back was not Resisting Arrest.

Commonwealth v. Tamika Jones[126] (845 A.2d 821, 2004 PA Super 28) The Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that knowledge on part of police officer who stopped defendant’s vehicle, that an individual had complained that a vehicle matching the description of defendant’s vehicle and license plate number was involved in ³drug activity,² was insufficient to serve as basis for a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity; officer did not observe any conduct by defendant that would corroborate tip provided to dispatcher, and tipster did not provide any information about individuals allegedly involved in ³drug activity² or specify what the ³activity² was. Allowing Commonwealth to call as witness the informant whose tip led to stop of defendant’s vehicle would not have satisfied Commonwealth’s burden, in opposing motion to suppress evidence obtained during that stop, of establishing existence of reasonable suspicion; defendant did not contest the content of information provided, but rather whether the information itself was sufficient to serve as basis for reasonable suspicion.

This case involved a Petition to Compel the Commonwealth to provide a duplicate copy of a computer hard drive for expert analysis in a child pornography case. Under Federal Law, a duplicate copy of the hard drive will only be provided to an expert to view in the government’s facility. This greatly restricts the expert’s ability to perform a comprehensive analysis of the hard drive because the expert is not able to bring his full reference library and all of his equipment. Additionally, it forces the expert to work with unfamiliar systems. The Court held that Federal Law did not supercede the Pennsylvania Discovery Rules and therefore issued a protective order for our expert to receive the mirror image hard drive and perform comprehensive analysis. This provides the Defendant with the opportunity to fully address the alleged evidence against him.

The full order in the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Michaels[127]

Police received a dispatch from an individual at a movie theater who stated that they saw the Defendant fall over and that there was a bottle of wine under the seat. The caller then followed the Defendant to his vehicle and stated that he appeared intoxicated. The caller then provided the police with the Defendant’s license plate number and make and model of vehicle. Police identified the vehicle and began to follow it. While the police were following the vehicle, the vehicle was observed traveling below the speed limit and touched the yellow line. The Officer candidly testified that she did not witness a violation of the motor vehicle code or driving that would cause her to pull the vehicle over. I was successful in arguing that the police officer did not have reasonable suspicion to stop the Defendant’s vehicle and therefore all evidence acquired after the stop was inadmissible. Specifically, the Caller identity was never disclosed and therefore his tip had to corroborated by the Officer following the vehicle. The Court held that the Officer did not have sufficient independent observations to corroborate the tip and that the stop was not valid.

The full order in the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Francis[128]

The Defendant was accused of Driving Under the Influence. An Officer followed the Defendant’s vehicle and observed the vehicle leave its lane of travel on several occasions. The Officer than performed a traffic stop and had the Defendant perform standard field sobriety tests. The Defendant was then taken Gettysburg Hospital for a blood test. The Gettysburg Hospital blood test stated that the Defendant’s Blood Alcohol Concentration was .231%.

At trial, a Jury convicted the Defendant of DUI with a blood alcohol content of above .16%. However, we were able to successfully appeal this verdict and the trial court awarded a new trial. Specifically, the Trial Court held that the weight of the evidence did not support the blood alcohol result.

The full order in the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Angles[129]

After observing the Defendant’s vehicle on two (2) separate occasions, and for a total of a mile to a mile and a half, Trooper Finkbiner effectuated a stop. His alleged basis for doing so was that he observed the vehicle cross the white fog line and the dotted white line separating the two lanes of travel by a tire’s width for a matter of seconds each time. “Under the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that Trooper Finkbiner did not have reasonable suspicion that the Defendant was in violation of the vehicle code, therefore not having the requisite cause to make a stop.

The full order in the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Matthew Lee Kull[130]

If you’re looking for professionally aggressive representation, contact The McShane Firm today[131] and put Harrisburg’s most highly-trained attorneys in your corner. WE FIGHT!

Highly recommend to anyone in need of a miracle worker. Knows how to use the system to his clients best interest. Have used other lawyers in past and this one rates top of the list. His rates are reasonable also.

Kevin

Justin is very responsive. He returned all of my calls, many times immediately. He really cared about my case and was able to protect me from jail. He is excellent. If you need a criminal defense attorney hire him. [132]

Anonymous

If anyone in the Harrisburg area is looking for a lawyer, you should call Justin McShane. I am a free man today and I believe that is due to his efforts and superior knowledge. He helped me to avoid jail time and I was only left with community service and a reasonable fine. [133]

Anonymous

He is the best words can’t explain how much I appreciate him fighting for my husband who was charged with a firearm possession and it could of sent him back for 10 years he saved his life. He was innocent and it was proven. [134]

Dorothy

Was very pleased with Justin’s ability to save my arse from Harrisburg police. Was very satisfied with his knowledge of my case. A real professional. Highly recommend. He also was reasonable in his rate and is willing to work with customers on payment.

Kevin

References

  1. ^ Pennsylvania DUI (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  2. ^ underage drinking (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  3. ^ Pennsylvania Criminal Law (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  4. ^ capital homicide (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  5. ^ National Board of Trial Advocacy (www.nblsc.us)
  6. ^ CDL license holders (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  7. ^ licensed professionals (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  8. ^ Pennsylvania DUI Blog (www.paduiblog.com)
  9. ^ The Truth About Forensic Science (www.thetruthaboutforensicscience.com)
  10. ^ DUI (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  11. ^ The McShane Firm (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  12. ^ The Truth About Forensic Science (www.TheTruthAboutForensicScience.com)
  13. ^ PA DUI Attorney (www.PADUIBlog.com.)
  14. ^ Pennlago (www.PennLAGO.com)
  15. ^ Colonial Combat Sports Club (CCSC) (www.ColonialCombatSportsClub.com)
  16. ^ National Board of Trial Advocacy (www.nblsc.us)
  17. ^ Forensic Sobriety Assessment (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  18. ^ American Chemical Society – The world’s largest scientific society. (web.archive.org)
  19. ^ American Chemical Society – The world’s largest scientific society. (web.archive.org)
  20. ^ Society for Analytical Chemists of Pittsburgh (www.sacp.org)
  21. ^ National Fire Protection Association (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  22. ^ American Bar Association – Defending Liberty, Pursuing Justice (www.americanbar.org)
  23. ^ HOME: Pennsylvania Bar Association (www.pabar.org)
  24. ^ Dauphin County Bar Association (www.dcba-pa.org)
  25. ^ PACDL | Pennsylvania Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (www.pacdl.org)
  26. ^ The Federal Bar Association – Online (www.fedbar.org)
  27. ^ The American Association for Justice – Homepage (www.justice.org)
  28. ^ The American Trial Lawyers Association (web.archive.org)
  29. ^ National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) (web.archive.org)
  30. ^ Pennsylvania Association for Drunk Driving Defense Attorneys (www.paddda.com)
  31. ^ The Pennsylvania Innocence Project – Home (www.innocenceprojectpa.org)
  32. ^ Marijuana Law Reform – NORML (norml.org)
  33. ^ Pennsylvania Association for Drunk Driving Defense Attorney’s (www.paddda.com)
  34. ^ Franklin & Marshall (www.fandm.edu)
  35. ^ Home (www.marshallscholarship.org)
  36. ^ Franklin & Marshall (www.fandm.edu)
  37. ^ Scouting (scouting.org)
  38. ^ Field Sobriety Assessment (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  39. ^ NCDD Winter Session-sit for ABA/PBA Board Certification (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  40. ^ McShane DUI: Effects of Drugs Other Than Alcohol certification (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  41. ^ PACDL’s For the Experienced Seminar (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  42. ^ Just Because You are an Expert…Doesn’t Make You Interesting (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  43. ^ Behavioral Optometry/Vision Science Perspective on the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Exam for DUI Enforcement (FESP0207) (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  44. ^ An Update on the Effects of Marijuana and its Potential Medical Use: Forensic Focus (FEFA0205) (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  45. ^ NHTSA’s based Standardized Field Sobriety Testing Practitioner (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  46. ^ Mastering Scientific Evidence certificate (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  47. ^ Pennsylvania Innocence Project Training (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  48. ^ How to Aggressively, Scientifically and Ethically Defend a Controlled Substances Accusation (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  49. ^ Routine Venipuncture (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  50. ^ Phlebotomy (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  51. ^ Gas Chromatography: Fundamentals, Toubleshooting, and Method Development (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  52. ^ Making Sense of Science (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  53. ^ Trucking Litigation and D.O.T. Regulations (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  54. ^ Special Olympics: Home (www.specialolympics.org)
  55. ^ DUI (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  56. ^ Attorney Barrouk’s Avvo profile (www.avvo.com)
  57. ^ The McShane Firm (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  58. ^ View Original Testimonial (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  59. ^ View Original Testimonial (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  60. ^ View Original Testimonial (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  61. ^ From Google Business (www.google.com)
  62. ^ From Google Business (www.google.com)
  63. ^ From Google Business (www.google.com)
  64. ^ From Google Business (www.google.com)
  65. ^ From Google Business (www.google.com)
  66. ^ Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile (www.avvo.com)
  67. ^ Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile (www.avvo.com)
  68. ^ Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile (www.avvo.com)
  69. ^ Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile (www.avvo.com)
  70. ^ Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile (www.avvo.com)
  71. ^ Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile (www.avvo.com)
  72. ^ Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile (www.avvo.com)
  73. ^ Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile (www.avvo.com)
  74. ^ Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile (www.avvo.com)
  75. ^ Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile (www.avvo.com)
  76. ^ Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile (www.avvo.com)
  77. ^ Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile (www.avvo.com)
  78. ^ Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile (www.avvo.com)
  79. ^ Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile (www.avvo.com)
  80. ^ Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile (www.avvo.com)
  81. ^ Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile (www.avvo.com)
  82. ^ Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile (www.avvo.com)
  83. ^ Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile (www.avvo.com)
  84. ^ Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile (www.avvo.com)
  85. ^ Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile (www.avvo.com)
  86. ^ Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile (www.avvo.com)
  87. ^ Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile (www.avvo.com)
  88. ^ Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile (www.avvo.com)
  89. ^ Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile (www.avvo.com)
  90. ^ Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile (www.avvo.com)
  91. ^ Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile (www.avvo.com)
  92. ^ Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile (www.avvo.com)
  93. ^ Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile (www.avvo.com)
  94. ^ Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile (www.avvo.com)
  95. ^ Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile (www.avvo.com)
  96. ^ Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile (www.avvo.com)
  97. ^ Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile (www.avvo.com)
  98. ^ Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile (www.avvo.com)
  99. ^ Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile (www.avvo.com)
  100. ^ Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile (www.avvo.com)
  101. ^ Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile (www.avvo.com)
  102. ^ Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile (www.avvo.com)
  103. ^ Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile (www.avvo.com)
  104. ^ Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile (www.avvo.com)
  105. ^ Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile (www.avvo.com)
  106. ^ Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile (www.avvo.com)
  107. ^ Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile (www.avvo.com)
  108. ^ Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile (www.avvo.com)
  109. ^ Attorney McShane’s Avvo profile (www.avvo.com)
  110. ^ DUI (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  111. ^ The McShane Firm (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  112. ^ Commonwealth v. Schildt (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  113. ^ Lebanon County Blood Testing Ruling (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  114. ^ Commonwealth v. Karns 50 A.3d 158 (2012) (PDF) (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  115. ^ Commonwealth v. Zerphey (936 MDA 2009) (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  116. ^ Commonwealth v. Longenecker (PDF) (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  117. ^ Gettysburg Times article (web.archive.org)
  118. ^ PDF link (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  119. ^ Pennsylvania DUI Law Blog (www.paduiblog.com)
  120. ^ Commonwealth v. Lutz (PDF) (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  121. ^ Commonwealth v. Jennifer Barton Martin (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  122. ^ Commonwealth v. Valle-Velez (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  123. ^ Commonwealth v. Christina Houtz (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  124. ^ Commonwealth v. Justin Tobery (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  125. ^ Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs. Shawn Seif: (1265 MDA 2002) (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  126. ^ Commonwealth v. Tamika Jones (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  127. ^ Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Michaels (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  128. ^ Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Francis (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  129. ^ Commonwealth v. Angles (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  130. ^ Commonwealth v. Kull (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  131. ^ contact The McShane Firm today (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  132. ^ criminal defense attorney (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  133. ^ Justin McShane (www.themcshanefirm.com)
  134. ^ charged with a firearm possession (www.themcshanefirm.com)

Source URL: Read More
The public content above was dynamically discovered – by graded relevancy to this site’s keyword domain name. Such discovery was by systematic attempts to filter for “Creative Commons“ re-use licensing and/or by Press Release distributions. “Source URL” states the content’s owner and/or publisher. When possible, this site references the content above to generate its value-add, the dynamic sentimental analysis below, which allows us to research global sentiments across a multitude of topics related to this site’s specific keyword domain name. Additionally, when possible, this site references the content above to provide on-demand (multilingual) translations and/or to power its “Read Article to Me” feature, which reads the content aloud to visitors. Where applicable, this site also auto-generates a “References” section, which appends the content above by listing all mentioned links. Views expressed in the content above are solely those of the author(s). We do not endorse, offer to sell, promote, recommend, or, otherwise, make any statement about the content above. We reference the content above for your “reading” entertainment purposes only. Review “DMCA & Terms”, at the bottom of this site, for terms of your access and use as well as for applicable DMCA take-down request.

Acquire this Domain
You can acquire this site’s domain name! We have nurtured its online marketing value by systematically curating this site by the domain’s relevant keywords. Explore our content network – you can advertise on each or rent vs. buy the domain. Buy@TLDtraders.com | Skype: TLDtraders | +1 (475) BUY-NAME (289 – 6263). Thousands search by this site’s exact keyword domain name! Most are sent here because search engines often love the keyword. This domain can be your 24/7 lead generator! If you own it, you could capture a large amount of online traffic for your niche. Stop wasting money on ads. Instead, buy this domain to gain a long-term marketing asset. If you can’t afford to buy then you can rent the domain.

About Us
We are Internet Investors, Developers, and Franchisers – operating a content network of several thousand sites while federating 100+ eCommerce and SaaS startups. With our proprietary “inverted incubation” model, we leverage a portfolio of $100M in valued domains to impact online trends, traffic, and transactions. We use robotic process automation, machine learning, and other proprietary approaches to power our content network. Contact us to learn how we can help you with your online marketing and/or site maintenance.

1 2

Categories:Best Homicide Lawyers

Share