Case against man charged with killing 2 people outside gas station headed to trial
AMBRIDGE, Pa. – The case against the man accused in the shooting deaths of two men who he said were part of a group that attacked him at an Ambridge gas station last month will move forward.
Brandon Lee Richardson, 31, was surrounded by supporters Friday during a preliminary hearing.
The judge heard testimony from two Ambridge police officers who told the judge they saw multiple shell casings, blood and a bullet hole in a silver sedan.
The prosecutor played surveillance video for the judge that the defense attorney said showed Richardson being jumped while standing at the back of his car and being beaten, kicked and punched.
Richardson’s attorney, Steve Townsend, said his client fired only after the group of five walked away and two came back and continued the assault. Brandon Everett and Lamar Seymour died in the shooting.
According to Townsend, Richardson didn’t know the people who allegedly jumped him, and everyone involved was at a bar in the evening, but nothing happened there.
Richardson, who Townsend says has stage 4 prostate cancer, was held for trial on all charges.
Pennsylvania Use of Force: Title 18 Pa.C.S.A. Sec. 505
Use of force in self-protection.
(a) Use of force justifiable for protection of the person.—The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion.
(2) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat;
There are legal experts like in Law Office of Daniel Deng personal injury lawyers that can help with legal representation of such cases.
John Paul, is the founder of the Beaver Countian and an investigative journalist. If you want to keep up on the corruption or anything relevant in Beaver County, please click on the link above.
Investigative Report: Aliquippa Officer Claims DA Lozier’s Office Retaliated After He Provided Evidence Of Corruption
It took a while to receive the decision, but it was well worth the wait. A client appears for an unemployment compensation hearing as the employer appealed the benefits. The employer’s key witness, who received a subpoena, failed to appear and failed to provide any reason for not appearing. During the hearing, the employer tried to elicit hearsay testimony to support their allegations of willful misconduct. However, the referee correctly excluded the testimony as the witness was not present. The referee indicated a decision would be forthcoming. Approximately 2 days later, employee received notice that the hearing was being reopened to allow the witness to testify.
Pursuant to the Board Rules, reopening a case is strictly defined, and in this case imporoper. However, over objection the referee conducted the hearing and ultimately denied the employee benefits.
Not being discouraged, we filed a review of the referee’s decision to sua sponte, reopen the case and obtained the benefits the employee rightly deserved. See the Board’s decision below.
If you have an unemployment issue please contact: Steven C. Townsend
An Aliquippa district judge recused herself Tuesday from two criminal cases against an Aliquippa assistant police chief, delaying the preliminary hearings that were scheduled to begin in the Beaver County Courthouse.
I am presently handling a case for a catastrophically injured cyclist. He unfortunately found himself underinsured because of language found in his auto policy. Like many of you, he bought motorcycle insurance from a company that was not the company that insured his automobiles. I am sure that he thought he was being very prudent in buying “supplemental” insurance.
WARNING! He had a great auto policy but, probably, like most of you, he did not read the exclusion in the small print. His auto policy with high underinsured limits did not apply to a vehicle he owned which was not covered by his auto policy. Since he covered his motorcycle with another company, he was excluded from recovering his million dollars underinsured coverage under his auto policy. If his motorcycle had been insured in the policy covering his auto, the exclusion would not have applied. To make matters worse, his auto policy contained a provision excluding medical payments for injuries sustained while operating a motorcycle not insured by his auto carrier. To use Hale Law, P.A. for legal aid in such injury cases is a good idea.
Check your policies now. Whenever possible, cover your auto and motorcycle under the same policy. If you have questions please give me a call, as I don’t want to see anyone else in this position.
If you have already been injured and have been faced with this exclusion, please give me a call. Some insurance companies have failed to write the exclusion properly and recovery may be possible.
Aliquippa Assistant Police Chief Joseph Perciavalle III is facing a second criminal charge in connection with content found on his cell phone as part of the investigation into the death of teacher Rachael DelTondo, according to court records.
Assistant Chief Perciavalle, 43, of Aliquippa, is accused of secretly recording a 39-minute conversation between himself and police Chief Donald Couch on March 2, according to a criminal complaint. That’s the same day that Pennsylvania State Police executed a search warrant on Aliquippa city officesin connection with a grand jury investigation into allegations of theft.
In the recorded conversation, the pair discussed Aliquippa police, the pension fund, high school football and other topics, according to the complaint.
In Pennsylvania, one person cannot record a conversation with another person without both people’s permission. Chief Couch told investigators on June 29 that he never gave Assistant Chief Perciavalle permission to record the conversation.
Assistant Chief Perciavalle is charged with a single count of intercepting communications, a felony.
His attorney, Steven Townsend, said Tuesday that the complaint is “as written completely false.”
“There is a conversation on his cell phone, there’s no denying that, but the way it was recorded is definitely not as the affidavit reads,” Mr. Townsend said, adding that Assistant Chief Perciavalle denies any wrongdoing.
“I can’t get into specifics because there are other investigations going on,” the attorney said. “But there are certain exceptions under the wiretap act in which someone can be recorded — one [is] being in a public place, which this was.”
The complaint said Assistant Chief Perciavalle and Chief Couch “rode together on patrol” during the recorded conversation. Mr. Townsend said the pair was never in the same car.
“My client and Couch were not in the same patrol car when this conversation took place,” he said, and declined to elaborate.
Assistant Chief Perciavalle was also arrested in June on a separate felony charge of sending a sexually explicit video to a 17-year-old girl who later became a witness in Ms. DelTondo’s killing.
Authorities reviewed Assistant Chief Perciavalle’s phone records as part of the homicide investigation and discovered that he sent a video of a female urinating on a swing to the girl on May 10.
Assistant Chief Perciavalle was charged with sending the explicit video on June 8, two days after he took over as acting chief of the police department. He took leadership after Chief Couch was placed on paid administrative leave by city council for an unspecified reason that is not connected to the DelTondo investigation.
After Assistant Chief Perciavalle was arrested on June 8, longtime Capt. Robert Sealock was promoted to acting chief. He remains in the role.
Assistant Chief Perciavalle is scheduled to appear for preliminary hearings in both cases on Aug. 20.
Shelly Bradbury: 412-263-1999, email@example.com or follow @ShellyBradbury on Twitter.
First Published July 10, 2018, 1:05pm
In late 2017, the Superior Court issued an absurd opinion regarding the interaction between Act 235 and PUFA. It held that an individual who is Act 235 certified is not entitled to carry a firearm to and from work, absent a license to carry firearms, regardless of the language in Act 235 that requires a private security guard carry his/her certificate when “on duty or going to and from duty and carrying a lethal weapon.” Although the Court stated that Act 235 and PUFA are not inconsistent, the opinion seems to indicate otherwise.
You might think that a person is exempt under Section 6106(b)(6), which declares:
(b) Exceptions. — The provisions of subsection (a) shall not apply to:
(6) Agents, messengers and other employees of common carriers, banks, or business firms, whose duties require them to protect moneys, valuables and other property in the discharge of such duties.
Well according to the Court you would be dead wrong. Why, well that question is a bit harder to answer as the Court stated that the EXCEPTIONS under Section 6106 are merely affirmative defenses. What does that mean? It means that the Commonwealth can and will arrest you if you have an Act 235 clearance , no firearm permit as stated by employment attorneys based in San Francisco area, AND you working in the scope of your employment. It doesn’t make any sense, but they are effectively saying that it would be a lawful arrest and at trial you could defend yourself by asserting Section 6106(b)(6) as an affirmative defense.
Think about the exception in Section 6101(b)(1): Constables, sheriffs, prison or jail wardens, or their deputies, policemen of this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions, or other law-enforcement officers.
Police officers, sheriffs etc. are not required to obtain concealed weapons permits for employment. Therefore, under the Court’s reasoning, a police officer who is carrying a firearm and does not have a concealed fireman permit should be arrested and have to prove he was acting as a police officer at trial.
If you are in law enforcement or have an Act 235 clearance, I strongly suggest that you obtain a license to carry under PUFA.
Attorney Steve Townsend represented Deontae Jones in this case and was the only lawyer who successfully argued to have his client’s case decertified back to juvenile court. It took a great amount of effort and time, but as you can see, those efforts paid off.
The incident was a great tragedy, but hopefully it sends a message to others.
Lawrence “Pooh Rat” Reddick Jr. was found guilty Monday morning of first- and second-degree murder, robbery in 2016 Aliquippa double homicide.
BEAVER — The gallery of a Beaver County courtroom maintained a level of stoicism as a jury foreperson rendered its verdict Monday morning, convicting 19-year-old Lawrence “Pooh Rat” Reddick Jr. of first- and second-degree murder.
Some soft cries were heard from members of the victims’ families. Reddick himself showed little emotion as the verdict was read.
Reddick was found guilty of first-degree murder in the death of 18-year-old Dane Mathesius, of Brighton and New Sewickley townships, and second-degree murder of William Cade Booher, 16, of Beaver.
He also was found guilty of robbery, conspiracy, aggravated assault, reckless endangerment and carrying a firearm without a license.
The jury returned after about 12 hours of deliberations, having worked out a proclaimed “impasse” that was reached Friday afternoon.
At that time, the jury told the court it was “at an 11 to 1 impasse” because one juror was “not following the definition of reasonable doubt.” The jury said the unidentified juror was looking for a 100 percent certainty in determining a verdict.
In response, Beaver County Judge Kim Tesla reread to the jury the definition of what beyond a reasonable doubt means. He sent them back to continue discussions.
Jurors were dismissed at about 5 p.m. Friday and returned at 9 a.m. Monday. The verdict was rendered at about 10 a.m.
The jury foreperson fought tears as the conviction was read. Upon request of the defense, the jurors were polled, each of them agreeing to the conviction.
“There were tears,” District Attorney David Lozier said after the verdict. “The foreman of the jury had difficulty reading the verdict slip. They obviously took this very seriously and have respect for the process.”
He thanked the jury for its time and commitment to the case.
“They came back with a very courageous verdict, a first-degree homicide verdict in this kind of circumstance is hard, it takes a lot of courage for a jury to come back with a first-degree homicide verdict,” Lozier said.
A sentencing date for Reddick has yet to be set. Because he was a juvenile at the time of the homicide, Reddick does not qualify for an automatic sentence of life imprisonment for the conviction of first-degree murder. His sentence will be left to the decision of Tesla, who presided over the trial.
Co-defendant Ronald “Reno” Foster, 19, was tried in August and was found guilty of third-degree murder. He was sentenced to serve between 34 and 70 years in prison.
Deontae Jones, 19, who testified in the case, also was charged in the shooting. He pleaded to a count of conspiracy to commit robbery in juvenile court and is awaiting sentencing.
All three teens were 17 years old at the time of the incident.
Lozier said the double homicide impacted families across Beaver County, including the families of the three defendants.
“We can’t forget the fact that we have two dead children and a third 13-year-old boy that watched this happen in the car,” he said. “It also impacted the families of Aliquippa. This impacted six families in a devastating way. There are no winners.”
Lozier also said Reddick’s conviction will bring some closure to the families of Mathesius, Booher and the 13-year-old witness, many of whom witnessed the entire Reddick trial, as well as the trial against Foster.
“There were always questions as to whether or not the community would take this loss seriously enough, and I think this verdict answers that question,” Lozier said.
BEAVER — Criminal charges filed against the owner of a defunct personal-care home were dismissed prior to a preliminary hearing.
The 78-bed facility on Norwood Drive was closed in October after an employee reported not having been paid by Katekovich for two months of work. In all, three employees were named in a criminal complaint filed against her.
One former employee reported she was not paid $560 by Katekovich for hours she worked between Sept. 24 and Oct. 14, police said. Another told police she had not been paid for two months of work, though the report did not specify the amount she was owed.
Police said a third employee reported her insurance through the company Aflac was canceled in March when Katekovich stopped paying into the account, even though the employee said she had money taken out of her pay to cover the insurance, police said.
Katekovich’s defense attorney, Steven Townsend, said all three cases were dismissed. Only one of the cases, he said, was “valid.” Katekovich resolved that case by paying the employee the $560 she was owed.
In the case of the Aflac account, Townsend said documents showed that the employee was actually covered by the company and that the money had not been taken out.
The third employee did not cooperate with the investigation and failed to appear in court, Townsend said.
Three charges of theft were dismissed against Katekovich. Townsend said Katera’s Kove remains closed.
At the time she was charged, 19 residents were relocated from the home, according to the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services.
This is one of the first cases in Pennsylvania to be resolved.
I am pleased to have successffully represented a client who was unconstitutionally required to register as a sex offender since 2012. In 2017, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that it is unconstitutional to require a person to register under 42 Pa.C.S. Chapter 97, where that person’s registration requirement had expired. This decision focused on the SORNA legislation passed in 2012.
The SORNA legislation required individuals who for example, had a 10 registration requirement for certain offenses, to now register for life regardless of the initial registration requirements. The Court got this one right and held that registration is in essence a penalty and therefore, requiring an additional penalty was ex post facto and unconstitutional.
The U.S. Supreme Court denied a challenge to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in Muniz filed by the Cumberland County District Attorney’s Office.