The media has brought to our attention various rumors on social media about the ongoing investigation into a boy’s death in Bradford. The reporter asked the District Attorney if she should could address some of those rumors. The District Attorney stresses that public tips on the ongoing investigation are greatly appreciated and she provided the following information on the rumors and other aspects of the criminal justice system. She noted that the criminal investigation is ongoing by the City of Bradford Police, the District Attorney, the coroner, medical examiner and 2 County Detectives who continue to work on the case and have every day since it occurred. Additional charges may be filed after the results of the autopsy and other lab results are obtained.
The media reports that there is a rumor that charges were withdrawn in a prior case against the defendant. Were charges withdrawn? If so, why?
The DA has pulled the record and was able to confirm that no charges were withdrawn and all charges filed in the case went through a preliminary hearing and to a jury trial. The state’s computerized docket system determines how charges appear and the AOPC could answer questions about that. The DA notes that she has been advised that the state’s “limited access/clean slate” policy limits what is viewable by the public and shows all/only convictions. Police officers and other legal personnel have access to the complete record.
The DA: “Your questions about a prior criminal case is understandable and we can provide information that appears in public records about a particular case as we are bound by specific rules. You have asked about a rumor that charges were “withdrawn” in a prior case. As we all know, Facebook is very helpful in many ways, including providing us tips that the officers are following up on. I thank the public for that help. Unfortunately, it can also lead to false information. As to the current case, I will provide updated information when it is available. As to a prior case, I have looked at the public records and the public records confirm that no charges were withdraw. Someone is charged with a crime when the evidence supports a finding of probable cause. That is the only consideration. In that case, the police filed a criminal complaint which is what caused the case to be listed for a preliminary hearing. At the preliminary hearing, evidence is presented and, if the magisterial district judge finds a “prima facie” level of proof, he sends the charges on to the next level, which is the county level. The magistrate does not determine if the person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The level of proof required at the preliminary hearing – prima facia – is whether the claim being presented to a court has merit, when taken at face value. The magistrate is not permitted to determine credibility at that hearing. The hearing is simply to see if there is enough to take a case forward. It is kind of a one-sided hearing because it is the evidence that the police have that the judge looks at to determine if there is enough to move the case forward. After the preliminary hearing, the charges come to the county level.
In this case, I looked at the complaint filed by the officer in this case and see it contains the same charges that the suspect went to trial on. In short, the records show that no charges were withdrawn and this is shown in the criminal complaint, formal Information filed by the DA’s Office, and verdict slip docketed September 14, 2022.
I was alerted to another rumor in the case as well, including that there was a riot at the McKean County Jail this weekend. I have confirmed with the Warden that that, too, was simply a rumor.
The public’s concerns about reported child abuse cases are shared by law enforcement and myself. Just as a summary for the readers about child abuse investigations, I can say that, commonly, police and CYS do concurrent investigations. The law provides CYS and the District Attorney/Police a mechanism to share information in serious child abuse investigations and that occurred in that case. To facilitate that communication, when I became the District Attorney, I asked our IT department to create a conference call bridge line for the DA’s Office for this purpose. Typically, we hold these conferences within 24 hours of a report of serious child abuse or anytime someone involved in the investigation requests one. In these conferences, anyone involved in the investigation who can provide information is included including medical staff who treated a child, police officer, and cys investigator.
After the formal charging document is filed, a defendant can either plead guilty or not guilty. I can confirm because it is public record that Tyler Prescott pled not guilty and the prior case went to a jury trial which saw several witnesses including medical experts, a police officer and others. I cannot disclose any barriers in the evidence or evidentiary problems, but I can tell you that the allegations were such that they were pursued by the officer (and the DA’s Office) and charged in such a way so the jury could make a determination of what actually occurred.
The charges filed in that case included those that require an offender to be the one to cause the injury and other charges that require that an offender violate a duty of care to a child and the jury listens to the testimony and determines if the evidence supports a finding of guilty or not guilty.
The jury’s determination of what occurred in that case resulted in Tyler Prescott being convicted by the jury of Endangering the Welfare of a Child – Felony and Recklessly Endangering Another Person – Misdemeanor.”
Was Prescott given any kind of a break at sentencing in 2021?
The defendant went to trial in that case so the judge determined the proper sentence. This was not a plea agreement. The judge is required to sentence someone within the range of sentence that the Pennsylvania legislators set. In looking at the sentence, the legislators set the range of the minimum sentence on the felony Endangering Welfare at between 18 months and 24 months. In Pennsylvania, anytime a judge imposes jail time, he has to impose a minimum within the range that the legislators permit and a maximum that has to be at least double the minimum. For this charge, the judge sentenced Prescott to 20 months to 40 months of state incarceration. For the misdemeanor charge, the judge sentenced him to 2 years concurrent probation which was within the range set by the legislators. The records confirm he served his maximum sentence.
I frequently hear from people that they think sentences are too low but the judge has to sentence every offender within the range that the legislators permit. I am often frustrated by that as well and have spoken about this to some of our legislators. I would ask that our state legislators consider these concerns and create stiffer penalties for serious crimes. Last year, however, the state changed the sentencing guidelines and now the sentences are actually less for most crimes than they were before so the change went in the opposite direction than what most people would have wanted. This is frustrating. In fact, our appeals’ court has stated that a judge is not permitted to include any conditions of parole when he sentences a person to state prison and that only the parole board can. I am currently appealing that opinion in another case but that is the current case law.
Were there post release conditions on the 2021 sentence that indicated he should have no contact with the family of the first victim?
If a defendant is paroled prior to their maximum, they have a parole officer and would have conditions they have to follow. However, if someone is not paroled and, instead stays incarcerated until they have served their maximum, 40 months in this case, then they are not on parole when they get released and would not have any parole conditions. This is a frustrating fact. Many times, we want people to stay incarcerated until they have served their entire sentence. The result, however, is that they go from incarceration and the strict terms that go along with incarceration straight to the community without restrictions or supervision. A few years ago, our legislators did impose a policy of mandatory consecutive probation after someone is released because they served their entire maximum sentence without being paroled to prevent this but that only applies to longer sentences. As far as conditions that a judge can place on an offender, our appellate court has stated that a judge is not permitted to include any conditions of parole when he sentences a person to state prison and that only the parole board can impose any such conditions or restrictions. I am currently appealing that opinion in another case but that is the current case law.
Sourced via CRIMEWATCH®: https://mckean.crimewatchpa.com/da/136029/post/media-reaches-out-district-attorney-about-facebook-rumors
Comments