Commonwealth Journal

News Live

September 29, 2012

Attorney is skeptical about McCoy’s indictment

Somerset —  

The attorney for a man suing Pulaski government for an alleged case of police brutality says he does not object to holding off on civil litigation pending criminal proceedings against his client.
But he also is skeptical about his client’s indictment.
Brandon J. Storm, the attorney for Kevin McCoy, said in a response filed in U.S. District Court last week that since a lengthy delay is not expected in the criminal proceedings, it’s OK to wait on the civil action.
McCoy was indicted on misdemeanor charges of reckless driving; driving on a suspended license; driving without a registration plate; and menacing, by intentionally placing another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury.
The indictment stems from an August 2011 arrest. McCoy later filed the lawsuit claiming that during the incident, he was roughed up by Pulaski County Sheriff’s Deputy Steve Molen.
In his response, Storm addressed McCoy’s indictment.
“Although the misdemeanor charges were just recently resurrected and initiated by the defendant, Steve Molen ... the court should note that the Pulaski County grand jury did not return an indictment against (McCoy) for fleeing or evading police, an allegation (Molen) had also previously levied against (McCoy),” Storm wrote.
Storm claimed that the indictment against his client stemmed from a conspiracy by members of Pulaski County government to “complicate an already complex litigation.”
“(McCoy) had been in pre-litigation discussions with the defendants’ claims adjuster prior to (Molen) resurrecting the dormant misdemeanor charges, which (McCoy) was under the impression were no longer pending as they had not been presented to the grand jury for months following (McCoy’s) preliminary hearing,” Storm wrote. “In fact, the defendants’ claims adjuster requested a settlement demand package be prepared and tendered in an effort to resolve this claim without the necessity of litigation. A demand packet was sent certified mail, return receipt, to the defendants’ claim adjuster on July 13, 2012, and was signed for by the defendant’s claim adjuster on July 17, 2012. Yet (Molen) deliberately elected to present (McCoy) to the grand jury after pre-litigation discussions were already taking place and after the defendants received (McCoy’s) demand packet; further evidence that all of the named defendants have engaged in much more than mere knowledge.

Text Only
News Live
News Live
AP Video
Texas Scientists Study Ebola Virus Smartphone Powered Paper Plane Debuts at Airshow Southern Accent Reduction Class Cancelled in TN Raw: Deadly Landslide Hits Indian Village Obama Chides House GOP for Pursuing Lawsuit New Bill Aims to Curb Sexual Assault on Campus Russia Counts Cost of New US, EU Sanctions 3Doodler Bring 3-D Printing to Your Hand Six PA Cops Indicted for Robbing Drug Dealers Britain Testing Driverless Cars on Roadways Raw: Thousands Flocking to German Crop Circle At Least 20 Chikungunya Cases in New Jersey Raw: Obama Eats Ribs in Kansas City In Virginia, the Rise of a New Space Coast Raw: Otters Enjoy Water Slides at Japan Zoo NCAA Settles Head-injury Suit, Will Change Rules Raw: Amphibious Landing Practice in Hawaii Raw: Weapons Fire Hits UN School in Gaza Raw: Rocket Launches Into Space With Cargo Ship Broken Water Main Floods UCLA
Hyperlocal Search
Premier Guide
Find a business

Walking Fingers
Maps, Menus, Store hours, Coupons, and more...
Premier Guide
Stocks