Case Results

Not long ago, a man found himself charged with a parole violation while living in a rehab and halfway house facility in Philadelphia. As a condition of his parole, he was receiving treatment for drug addiction and one day he was out looking for a job when he found himself in a convenience store during an armed robbery. The perpetrators evaded arrest, but the police actually arrested the man once they became aware he had a criminal record. It quickly became apparent that he was not involved in the robbery and was merely a bystander. Unfortunately, when he returned to the halfway facility his alleged involvement in the robbery was being considered a parole violation and prompted a search of his room. The administrators claimed to find K2 with his belongings, which is a synthetic marijuana and would also constitute a parole violation; therefore, he was taken into custody. The man was adamant the substance did not belong to him and he did not want to see all of the gains that he made in treatment be taken away along with his freedom because a parole violation would result in returning to prison. He knew he needed serious legal help navigating this convoluted situation and found Philadelphia criminal defense attorney Michael Fienman.

Attorney Michael Fienman knows too well that tragically, someone’s past mistakes can follow them for a very long time and sometimes being in the wrong place at the wrong time can devastate a person’s life. Attorney Fienman represented the man during his parole hearing in Chester County and relentlessly argued that the facility did not have the evidence to substantiate that his client actually had the K2 and that his arrest related to the robbery should not be considered a parole violation since he was in fact exonerated. Even though a parole hearing does not have the same burden of proof as normal proceedings, in the end, his client was vindicated of any wrongdoing, saving him from re-entering the prison system. Now, the man can continue his drug treatment program, unburdened by false charges and incarceration.

The outcome of an individual case depends on a variety of factors unique to that case. Case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any similar or future case.