Source: https://www.roygallowaylaw.com/case-results
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 01:32:08+00:00

Document:
Commonwealth v. T.M.- Our client was charged with first-degree murder, third-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter and was facing a mandatory life sentence if convicted of first-degree murder. At trial, Attorney Galloway argued that our client acted in self-defense when he took the life of an unarmed man because he reasonably believed that his life was in danger. The prosecutor contended that the victim was unarmed and never posed a threat to our client’s life. Attorney Galloway countered by arguing that the law does not require that the shooter’s life actually is in danger; rather, a person can use deadly force if they mistakenly but reasonably believes his or her life to be in danger. During the trial, Attorney Galloway introduced evidence to prove that it was reasonable for his client to believe that his life was in danger. After deliberating for less than an hour, the jury returned a NOT GUILTY VERDICT on all charges and the client was released from prison after being held in prison without bail for 9 months.
Commonwealth v. B.M.- Our client was charged by the Pennsylvania State Police with possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance and criminal attempt to commit possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, and he was facing up to 15 years incarceration and a fine of $250,000.00. After a two-day trial and two hours of deliberation, a cumberland county jury returned a not guilty verdict on both charges.
Commonwealth v. J.M.- Our client was charged with aggravated assault for allegedly assaulting a Dauphin County Prison Corrections Officer (“CO”) and was facing a 20-year prison sentence. The prosecutor alleged that our client caused swelling and redness to the lip and face of a CO after being removed from his cell to a segregated unit for inmates with disciplinary issues. At trial, Attorney Galloway contended that the corrections officer was the aggressor and planned to fight our client and had been threatening to beat him up for him for several months, had called him racial slurs and wrote him up for frivolous disciplinary infractions for several months. At the trial, the prosecutor called 4 corrections officers who all testified that our client hit the CO first and then they had to subdue him which caused a black eye, a missing tooth and pain in our client’s back and ribs. On cross-examination, Attorney Galloway was able to point out that the officers’ testimony conflicted with each other and; therefore was not believable. Additionally, Attorney Galloway called 5 inmates as witnesses for the defense who all verified our client’s claim that the CO had been harassing our client, threatened to the beat him on numerous occasions, invited him to fight on several occasions, and attempted to get other inmates to assault our client by accusing him of being a rat. After deliberating for less than 1 hour, the jury returned a NOT GUILTY verdict.
Commonwealth v. A.T.- Our client was facing up to 10 years incarceration on charges of theft by deception and conspiracy to commit theft by deception. In this case, the police accused our client of participating in a complex scheme involving numerous individuals to defraud credit unions by depositing bad checks and withdrawing the money immediately leaving the bank to suffer a loss. In this case, many of our client’s co-defendants entered into plea agreements with the government, but we fought the charges against our client and the charges were dismissed at the preliminary hearing phase.
Commonwealth v. J.E.- Our client was charged with possession of a firearm by a person not the possess and theft by receipt of stolen property (a firearm) and was facing up to 17 years in prison. Here, police discovered a stolen firearm in a vehicle registered to our client and our client had a prior felony record; therefore he is not allowed to possess a firearm. At the preliminary hearing, we argued that our client's vehicle was abandoned and he did not hav constructive possession of the firearm since he was not around the firearm when it was discovered and there was no proof he put the weapon there. The Magisterial District Judge agreed with our argument that the Commonwealth did not establish probable cause that our client possessed the firearm and the charges were dismissed.
In the Interest of T.B.- Our client, along with 2 co-defendants, were charged with robbery and the prosecutor was seeking to have our client transferred into the adult system where he was facing up to 20 years in prison and a mandatory minimum prison sentence of 5-10 years in a state correctional institution. At the bench-trial, the prosecutor introduced video surveillance showing that our client and his cohorts were at the crime scene at the time that the robbery occurred. Attorney Galloway’s contention was that our client may have been in the company of his co-defendants when the robbery occurred, but he had no prior knowledge that a robbery would occur and did not participate in the planning of the robbery. At the conclusion of the trial, our client was found NOT GUILTY and immediately released from detention.
In the Interest of T.D.- Our client was charged with multiple counts of theft for allegedly stealing merchandise from Target by concealing the merchandise in storage pins and leaving the store without paying for the items and was facing up to 4 years detention in juvenile placement facility. Target had video surveillance of the alleged thefts taking place. Our client had several juvenile and adult co-defendant’s who all either entered guilty pleas or were found guilty. We decided to contest the charges and challenged that the person in the video who was allegedly our client was someone else. The court found our client NOT GUILTY and all charges were dismissed.
Commonwealth v. J.L.- Our client was charged with possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance and several related misdemeanor offenses, and was facing over 15 years incarceration. It was alleged that our client possessed a large quantity of drugs with the intent to deliver them. In this case, our client was pulled over by state police for a traffic violation because he was allegedly swerving in and out of his lane. After serving our client with warning for the traffic violation, state police requested permission to search our client’s vehicle, which he refused. Thereafter, police ordered our client to remain on the side of a busy highway until K9s came to sniff the car. Our client was forced to stand on the side of the interstate for over an hour until K9s arrived. The car was eventually searched without a warrant and drugs were discovered. Attorney Galloway filed a motion to suppress the evidence on grounds that the initial traffic stop was justified, but the state troopers lacked reasonable suspicion that our client was involved in criminal activity to justify his continued detention after he received a warning for the traffic violation. Moments before the hearing commenced on the motion to suppress evidence, the prosecutor decided to withdraw the charges because the police had violated our client’s constitutional rights by illegally detaining him after he was given a warning for the traffic violation.
In the Interest of R.M.-Our client, a juvenile, was charged with possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance and criminal conspiracy and was facing up to 4 years in a juvenile placement facility. This case commenced when Harrisburg police received a report from county dispatch that an anonymous caller reported hearing shots fired and witnessed three black males flee the scene on foot. Our client was driving a vehicle with three other black juvenile passengers and police converged on that vehicle with guns drawn and ordered our client and his passengers to exit the vehicle. When our client was pulled from the vehicle drugs dropped from his lap onto the ground where police could see. Thereafter, the drugs were seized and the car was searched where more drugs were discovered. Attorney Galloway filed a Motion to Suppress the Drugs on grounds that police violated our client’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures by stopping him based on a report that 3 black males were fleeing on foot when our client’s vehicle had 4 black males in it who were not on foot and they were not observed being involved in any criminal activity. We argued that because the initial stop was illegal that all fruits of the stop should be suppressed. The court granted the motion to suppress the drug evidence, and all charges were dropped.
J.C. v. RC- Our client had been sharing physical custody of her daughter with the child’s father, but decided to petition the court to modify the custody order so that she could relocate with the child to a neighboring state and have primary physical custody because the current custody order was no longer in the child’s best interest. Our client lived in a neighboring state and the father lived in York, Pennsylvania. The child was attending kindergarten in the neighboring state when she was with mom and in York when she was with father. Following a heavily contested hearing, our client was granted primary physical custody and father’s custody was reduced to a weekend a month and several weeks during summer vacation.
E.L. v. T.C.- Our client, a father of two girls, came to us with partial custody of his girls and wanted to have shared physical custody (joint custody) of the girls because he wanted to be more involved in his daughters' lives. The mother refused to consent to our client having joint custody of the girls, so the matter was scheduled for a hearing with a judge. After a hearing, our client (the father) was awarded joint custody of his daughters. Whether you or your loved one is being charged with a crime or in need of legal advice concerning a divorce or custody matter, The Law Office of Roy Galloway, LLC can help you achieve the best possible outcome in your case. We offer free no-obligation initial consultations. To schedule your free initial consultation, call (717) 737-3300 or fill out our contact form and you will be contacted by friendly person from our staff.
"I like that Attorney Gallowy did what 2 other attorneys wouldn't do. He was persistent. He made himself available to answer any and all questions and his fees were reasonable. Mr. Galloway was upfront and honest whether I like or agree with his answer. Thanks Attorney Galloway for seeing me through and completing a process that others could not. Thank you!"

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.