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
SKorea Ferry Toll Hits 156, Search Gets Tougher Video Shows Possible Syrian Gas Attack Cubs Superfans Celebrate Wrigley's 100th Raw: Cattle Truck Overturns in Texas Admirers Flock to Dole During Kansas Homecoming Raw: Erupting Volcanoes in Guatemala and Peru Alibaba IPO Could Be Largest Ever for Tech Firm FBI Joining Probe of Suburban NY 'Swatting' Call U.S. Paratroopers in Poland, Amid Ukraine Crisis US Reviews Clemency for Certain Inmates Raw: Violence Erupts in Rio Near Olympic Venue Raw: Deadly Bombing in Egypt Raw: What's Inside a Commercial Jet Wheel Well Raw: Obama Arrives in Japan for State Visit Raw: Anti-Obama Activists Fight Manila Police Motels Near Disney Fighting Homeless Problem Michigan Man Sees Thanks to 'bionic Eye' S.C. Man Apologizes for Naked Walk in Wal-Mart Chief Mate: Crew Told to Escape After Passengers
Hyperlocal Search
Premier Guide
Find a business

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