Below is the real story and why the DA had evidentiary issues.
K. B. is no longer an “alleged victim of sexual assault”. She wasn’t a victim September 2017 and certainly is not a victim now. K.B. was not forced to accept the plea agreement. She chose to accept the offer as recommended to her by the Commonwealth.
Nicholas Washington never asked for a plea agreement and was prepared to go to trial. The unsolicited offer was submitted to Mr. Washington’s by the District Attorney’s Office, days before trial was to begin. The Commonwealth encouraged K.B. to accept the plea because her unsubstantiated claims were simply incredible and the evidence did not support her story.
It was idea to go back to the dorm room, with the intent to have consensual sex. It was K.B. who told the police she never said no.
K. B. did not want to expose herself to the truth in open court so she read her victim impact statement, knowing she would not be subject to cross examination. That cross examination would have included questions regarding her own statements on the night of the incident. It would have included statements she gave to the police, which were stipulated to by the prosecution, that Mr. Washington was innocent of the allegations and had done nothing wrong.
Whether you are a prosecuting attorney or a defense attorney, we are all bound by certain ethical duties. As a prosecutor those duties include, refraining from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause. If there had been probable cause, there would have been absolutely no reason to withdraw the charges. Had the Commonwealth believed her story, that alone could have provided support to proceed in the prosecution. Had this case proceeded to trial it would have been clear that Ms. Battin fabricated her story. It would have been abundantly clear that what she alleged was completely false.
If the justice system failed, it failed Nick Washington. For 18 months his life was put on hold. Between the time of the allegation and the day conveying an offer nothing had changed. Probable cause to support the charges never existed.
Mr. Washington pleaded guilty to a disorderly conduct, which is the lowest level, non-sexually related misdemeanor in Pennsylvania. Mr. Washington pleaded guilty despite his innocence, only due to the inherent risks of going to trial as a young black man.
It took almost a year to obtain justice, but finally the case was dismissed. Ms. Busia was wrongly charged with a number of serious felony offenses by an over zealous officer. She lost her job, had to fight for her unemployment, and has suffered unimaginable embarrassment from the start. After succeeding in her unemployment hearings and a lot of hard work and patience, Ms. Busia’s case is over. The entire case was withdrawn by the Allegheny County District Attorney’s Office as we were prepared to pick a jury on January 16, 2019.
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;
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, 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.
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.