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
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Payment of Fines & Completion of Probation Reinstates Right to Vote
Post 4576
Posted on November 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
To Restore Voting Rights The Felon Must Pay Fines of $546.00
In Florida Supreme Court Mediator Ethics Advisory Committee, ETH F-26-377, No. F-26-377 (October 29, 2026) citizen unnamed and to Ron Desantis Governor, Cord Byrd the Secretary of State Florida Division of Elections provided an advisory opinion to a convicted felon about his right to vote:
To: [redacted] We received your request for an advisory opinion. You indicate that you have one or more felony convictions and request whether you are eligible to vote, including whether you have any outstanding legal financial obligations under section 98.0751, Florida Statutes, and, if so, a statement of the amount that must be paid to make you eligible to vote, and an explanation of how the amount was calculated.
The Division hereby responds to your request pursuant to its legal authority under section 106.23(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida ...
Administrative Review Permits the Agency to Apply its Expertise
Post 4574
In Erwin Jordan Castro Valdez v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, No. 26-cv-06147-BAS-JLB, United States District Court, S.D. California (October 30, 2026) Castro Valdez, a Cuban national paroled into the United States, was arrested on June 23, 2026, for alleged insurance fraud, grand theft, and making a false report to law enforcement. In his first habeas action, the district court ordered a bond hearing within fourteen days to determine whether the changed circumstances justified revoking his parole.
An Immigration Judge subsequently denied bond because of his pending state criminal case. Castro Valdez filed a second petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging that determination and requesting immediate release without first appealing to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
LAW
According to the supplied text, § 2241 does not expressly require administrative exhaustion, but courts impose exhaustion as a prudential requirement. ...
Insured’s Ordered to Pay Insurer for Fraud by the Insureds
Post 4573
Posted on November 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In The Prudential Insurance Company Of America v. Carol Gardina and George Gardina, No. 6:23-cv-1125-JSS-DCI, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division (October 22, 2026).
THE JURY TRIAL AND VERDICT
Plaintiff sued Defendants for numerous causes of action stemming from its allegations that Defendants fraudulently collected benefits under their long-term care insurance policies. Plaintiff's case proceeded to a nine-day jury trial, after which the jury found Defendants liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and civil conspiracy.
The jury also found Defendant Carol Gardina liable to Plaintiff for $1,930,129 in compensatory damages and Defendant George Gardina liable to Plaintiff for $12,496 in compensatory damages and $20 in punitive damages. Thereafter, the court entered judgment in Plaintiff's favor and awarded Plaintiff $1,930,129 in compensatory damages from...
