As you may recall, I posted an article on February 26th about the Superior Court opinion of Commonwealth v. John Aumick where the Court found that SVP determinations cannot be based simply on allegations and hearsay. Normally I don’t write articles on Superior Court cases for two reasons: 1) an application for en banc (full court) reargument can be filed…
Read More
The PA Superior Court found that SVP determinations cannot be based simply on allegations and hearsay in the case of Commonwealth v. John Aumick, 2022 PA Super. 33 (Aumick). Mr. Aumick plead guilty to a Corruption of Minors charge against his stepdaughter in exchange for having the many other charges dismissed. He was sentenced to incarceration and placed on SORNA. As…
Read More
December 22, 2021 has seen the release of many case opinions from the PA Supreme Court (SCOPA) with Commonwealth v. David Santana being the biggest win for our advocacy efforts. In a 5-2 decision, SCOPA affirmed the Superior Court’s opinion that “Mr. Santana’s registration requirement under SORNA was an after-the-fact punishment, and therefore unconstitutional. Accordingly, he had no duty to…
Read More
Duquesne Law Review Vol 32, No. 3, Article 6 1994 John M. Mulchey By JB The following article from the Duke University Law Review explains how and why our Pennsylvania Supreme Court is more powerful than most other states’ supreme courts. The cases and the way our Supreme Court has interpreted its powers are explained through the Court’s interpretation of…
Read More
The Superior Court QUASHED the appeal of PSP in Commonwealth v. Kale on May 5, 2020 when the Trial Court denied their “Emergency Motion to Intervene and Vacate Order Nunc Pro Tunc” arguing that the Defendant should not be removed from the registry. PSP argued they have “standing to appear and contest a filing in a court of this Commonwealth…
Read More
Irrebuttable Presumption in Pennsylvania In Pennsylvania, there are two types of constitutional challenges to a statute: facial and as applied. An as-applied attack on a statute is a limited attack. “It does not contend that a law is unconstitutional as written, but that its application to a particular person under particular circumstances deprives that person of a constitutional right” (Com.…
Read More
Commonwealth v. Torsilieri Update 1/15/21 The fate of the public sex offender registry in PA will be determined sometime this year or next. Either defendant Torsilieri’s challenge will again reach the Supreme Court of PA, or the Commonwealth will be able to convince lower judges of their argument. (For a history of this momentous case and its significant delay, please…
Read More
We have seen it again. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court (SCOPA) has relied on Commonwealth v. Lacombe in the ruling of T.S. v. PA State Police (PSP). T.S. argued that PA’s SORNA Subchapter I violated the Federal and State Ex Post Facto Clauses. The basis of his argument is on the fact that his offense occurred prior to the enactment of…
Read More
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court (SCOPA) has relied on Commonwealth v. Lacombe in the ruling of T.S. v. PA State Police (PSP). T.S. argued that PA’s SORNA Subchapter I violated the Federal and State Ex Post Facto Clauses. The basis of his argument is on the fact that his offense occurred prior to the enactment of any PA registry. The problem…
Read More
2020 has turned out to be quite an eventful year to say the least. Lucky for you, I won’t be covering the pandemic nor the election. Instead, I’ll briefly cover the legal cases regarding SORNA and other relevant legal issues in Pennsylvania. So, hold on tight, here we go! PA Supreme Court: In the Interest of: N.B.-A., a Minor Decided…
Read More