Case Results – Anne Marie Mancuso
  1. Home
  2.  → Case Results – Anne Marie Mancuso

 

NORTH SIDE MAN FOUND NOT GUILTY BY JURY OF GUN CHARGES

August 1, 2019

A gun in the car that our client was driving – facts common to our law firm.  Because of the serious penalties involved in a charge of possession of a firearm, our client took his case to a jury to decide.  Ms. Mancuso fought the cops and the parole agent witnesses during a trial that lasted approximately two days.  After arguing that her client did not intend to possess the firearm, the jury agreed, finding him not guilty of all counts.

JURY ACQUITS ON CHARGES OF RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT
September 13, 2018

Our client was facing many serious sexual assault charges.  At trial, Attorney Mancuso was able to effectively challenge the physical evidence recovered at the scene and cast serious doubt on the version of events as described by the accuser.

Following a 3-day jury trial, an emotional not-guilty verdict was returned as to all sex-related charges.

JURY RETURNS A NOT GUILTY VERDICT AS TO FIREARM CHARGES
March, 2018

After finding a gun under the passenger seat of a vehicle occupied by her client, Ms. Mancuso argued to a jury that more is required than mere proximity to an item to convict a person of crime.  The jury agreed and found her client not guilty of all gun related charges.

HOMICIDE CHARGES DROPPED AGAINST NORTH SIDE MAN
2017 

This case arose out of a shooting that occurred in 2016 in the city of Pittsburgh.  There was one witness who claimed Ms. Mancuso’s client shot her family member while standing on a porch in front of her home.  The Commonwealth asserted phone record evidence that was contested by the defense.  After a pre-trial motion hearing in which the witness was challenged regarding her inconsistent story and unreliable identification, the case was dismissed.

MAN ACQUITTED OF ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE BY A JURY
March 15, 2016

Our client was charged with Attempted Homicide, Aggravated Assault, Carrying a Firearm without a License, Gun Charges, Reckless Endangerment, Possession of a Controlled Substance and Firing into an Occupied Structure and was acquitted by a jury of every charge.  In a rush to charge a suspect, our client was mis-identified as a shooter involved in a late-night incident in North Versailles. The identification of our client was aggressively attacked throughout the trial. Additionally, the science of gun shot residue was tested and challenged by the defense.  Ms. Mancuso achieved a full acquittal for her client after a week-long trial.

JURY ACQUITS MAN OF MOST SERIOUS CHARGES
August 19, 2015

Following two and a half days of deliberation, an Allegheny County jury acquitted Ms. Mancuso’s client of the most serious charges alleged against him including, robbery, kidnapping, criminal conspiracy to commit homicide, and criminal solicitation of homicide.

The defense argued to the jury that the victim’s story didn’t add up.  The video surveillance did not show physical force or aggressive behavior and further, shows the one of the accused robbers hand the victim back his ATM card and a receipt for the transaction. “Is that a robbery?” defense counsel asked the jury in closing arguments.  “Does a robber hand you back what is supposed to be stolen from you along with a receipt that documents the transaction?  I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, that doesn’t make sense.  And when something doesn’t make sense, it’s usually because it’s not true.”

JURY FINDS MAN NOT GUILTY OF INDECENT ASSAULT
2015

This case arose from a work place incident in which the accuser claimed that Ms. Mancuso’s client touched her inappropriately.  Our client adamantly denied any wrong-doing.  Asserting his total and complete innocence, the case proceeded to a jury trial. Multiple character witnesses testified on behalf of the defense, explaining to the jury that such an allegation was in total contradiction to our client’s good and decent reputation in the community.  Additionally, the defense was able to illustrate the accuser’s bias and motive to fabricate the accusations made against our client.

The jury returned a not guilty verdict as to the single charge of indecent assault following a short deliberation.

FIREARM CHARGES DISMISSED BY THE COURT
June 11, 2015

Our client was charged with person not to possess a firearm stemming from the recovery of a firearm from a residence that he was visiting.  Defense counsel argued that the fact that our client was present in the home was not legally sufficient grounds to hold the charge for further court action.  The magistrate presiding over the matter agreed and dismissed the charges following a preliminary hearing.

MAN SENTENCED TO PROBATION IN CONNECTION WITH SECOND FELONY DRUG OFFENSE
May 11, 2015

Our client was facing serious prison time as a result of a second felony drug charge.  Specifically, the standard range sentence in this case was 4-8 years.  Rather than go to trial, our strategy was to highlight the strong mitigating circumstances present in this case and enter a plea of guilty before the judge.  Following argument by counsel, our client was sentenced a probationary term of 3 years.

GUN CHARGE DISMISSED BY THE MAGISTRATE FOLLOWING A PRELIMINARY HEARING
March 16, 2015

Our firm was hired to defend a man charged with falsification of documents to authorities and illegal purchase/transfer of a firearm in connection with his attempt to lawfully purchase a gun.  As a result of our client’s prior background, he was not eligible to purchase and/or own a firearm, however was unaware of such ineligibility.

At the preliminary hearing held in this matter, defense counsel argued that our client did not have the requisite intent to deceive in his attempt to purchase the gun in question.  Following a hearing and argument concerning the same, the court dismissed both charges.

JUDGE ACQUITS MAN OF ROBBERY AND FIREARM CHARGE FOLLOWING A NON-JURY TRIAL
February 26, 2015

Attorney Mancuso represented our client in a non-jury trial before an Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Judge that resulted in a full acquittal.

At trial, Ms. Mancuso argued that the Commonwealth’s evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that our client was aware that a robbery had occurred and/or that he had any involvement with such criminal acts.  Further, she argued that the firearm in question could not be definitively linked to our client and that the controlling case law required the judge to find our client Not Guilty.