Unrelated Witness Misconduct no Help to Convicted Shooter
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gD3GMuDC, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gyf488DC and at https://lnkd.in/gUpxQCCz and https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4800 posts.
Post 4806
Luis M. Soto (“Soto”) appealed pro se from the order dismissing his second petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”).
In Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania v. Luis M. Soto, Nos. 831 EDA 2023, 832 EDA 2023, 833 EDA 2023, 834 EDA 2023, No. J-S04035-24, Superior Court of Pennsylvania (May 14, 2024) the appellate court gave consideration to all the pro se claims only to see them quashed.
FACTS
In 2013, Soto discharged a firearm into a large crowd of people in Philadelphia, killing one person and injuring three others, including Larry Robinson. Madeline Soberal, a witness to the shooting, was initially reluctant to speak with police, but after interacting with Officer Carmen Sanchez, identified Soto as the shooter from a photo array. The matter proceeded to a consolidated jury trial at which Soberal testified that she was a few feet away from Soto when he pulled out a firearm and began shooting into the crowd. Officer Sanchez testified that Soberal feared for her safety if she provided a statement to police and had to be convinced that police would ensure her safety if she agreed to provide testimony against Soto.
After Soto was convicted, in May 2022, the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office sent correspondence to Soto that revealed that each of the officers who testified with regard to his trial and conviction had been involved in various forms of misconduct unrelated to Soto’s criminal case. For example, Officer Sanchez received a fifteen-day suspension after being found guilty of insurance fraud, Officer Cartegena was disciplined for using excessive force in an unrelated criminal matter, and Detective Crone was disciplined for both a domestic violence incident and for authoring a racially offensive letter. None of the misconduct had anything to do with the shooting.
Soto claimed that he was entitled to a new trial on the basis that, “had the jury been aware of the officers’ history of, and propensity for misconduct at the time of his trial, the outcome would have been different.”
The PCRA court entered an order dismissing the petition. The appellate court reviews an order dismissing a petition under the PCRA in the light most favorable to the prevailing party at the PCRA level.
ANALYSIS
The PCRA court concluded that Soto’s claims lacked merit. The PCRA court observed that the evidence of misconduct by the officers was completely unrelated to Soto’s criminal case. The appellate court concluded that the PCRA court’s determination, that the after-discovered evidence presented by Soto had no other use than to impeach the credibility of the officers’ testimony at trial, is supported by the record and free of legal error.
In his PCRA petition, Soto identified only one witness who would testify at an evidentiary hearing, that is, Assistant District Attorney Shoshana Silverstein, to confirm that she provided Soto with the police misconduct disclosure packet that is the basis for his claims.
No witnesses at trial claimed that they were coerced by police, and the only evidence offered by Soto to the contrary was the isolated instances of unrelated police misconduct included in the police disclosure packet. Soto’s claims were entirely speculative.
The Superior Court concluded that the PCRA court’s decision to deny Soto’s request for leave to amend his petition is supported by the record and free from legal error. Soto’s issues merits no relief.
ZALMA OPINION
The essence of this case is that Soto must stay in jail. The fact that one of the officers who testified against Soto was convicted of Insurance Fraud and other officers were disciplined for unrelated issues had no bearing on the fact that Soto shot many bullets into a group of people and killed someone did not change and he was not entitled to post conviction relief.
(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe or at https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg.
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
at https://lnkd.in/gV9QJYH; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Happy Law Day
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-may-1-2026-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2tywc, see the video at at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year and is written by Barry Zalma.
DOJ Creates National Fraud Enforcement Division
Will the Feds Take on Insurance Fraud? Possibly as Part of a National Anti-Fraud Effort
On April 7, 2026, the Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, issued a memorandum establishing the Department of Justice National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED). The memo describes an ambitious, but perhaps redundant, vision for this ...
When Abalone Died As a Result of Multiple Causes The Efficient Proximate Cause Requires Payment
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/efficient-proximate-cause-doctrine-saves-claim-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-yndlc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In American Abalone Farms, LLC v. Star Insurance Company et al., H052643, California Court of Appeals, Sixth District (April 27, 2026) the Court of Appeals dealt with an insurance coverage issue that required application of the efficient proximate cause doctrine.
FACTS
American Abalone Farms, LLC ("American Abalone" ) operates an aquaculture farm in Santa Cruz County, California, raising abalone in tanks. In August 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex Fires led to a prolonged power outage and road closures near the farm. As a result, the farm’s water pumps failed, causing the death of most of the ...
Breach of a Specific Condition Precedent Is a Complete Defense
See the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In United Services Automobile Association and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Anthony Wenzell, 2026 CO 25 (Colo. Apr. 27, 2026) Anthony Wenzell was rear-ended in a car accident. He had a significant prior 2014 accident that required back surgery.
Wenzell claimed underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits under three policies: (1) the tortfeasor’s liability policy, (2) his own primary UIM policy with State Farm, and (3) an excess UIM policy issued by USAA (under his brother’s policy, which contained an “other insurance” clause making USAA’s coverage excess over any collectible insurance).
After receiving the claims, both USAA and State Farm repeatedly requested that Wenzell execute comprehensive medical-release authorizations so they could obtain his full medical records and ...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
What Must be Done after Notice of a Claim is Received by the Insurer
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzvvdkMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Below you will read from this post until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of an Excellence in Claims Handling post. To read the full article and receive all articles for members of Excellence in Claims Handling you should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the subscription link below.
A first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a person, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of loss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity under a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove that there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured by the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured ...
