CDM LAW Helps Secure Dismissal of All Charges in Richard Starks Attempted Murder Trial

CDM LAW trial attorney Christopher D. Mandracchia represented Richard Starks and helped secure dismissal of all charges in his York County attempted murder prosecution. The presiding judge dismissed the charges on April 3, 2024, while trial was underway and before a verdict.

Mr. Starks had faced attempted homicide, aggravated assault, and related charges arising from a dispute with a neighbor. According to CBS 21, the York County District Attorney acknowledged that the prosecution could not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and described dismissal as “the only ethical and just outcome.” ( CBS 21 coverage)

Serious criminal accusations demand a defense prepared to examine the evidence, challenge the prosecution’s case, and protect the accused’s rights through trial. Mr. Mandracchia’s experience as a former prosecutor and a trial attorney in both criminal and civil matters informs CDM LAW’s approach to that responsibility. ( About Christopher D. Mandracchia)

The Starks result also provides an opportunity to address a question people often face after an arrest, a prosecution, or a violent encounter: what legal remedies are available for the harm they have suffered? Lost income, medical expenses, emotional distress, and damage to a person’s reputation can remain after criminal proceedings end. When the evidence establishes a civil wrong, a separate lawsuit may provide a path to compensation.

Civil liability requires separate proof. The dismissal of criminal charges, by itself, does not establish police misconduct, a false accusation, or an entitlement to money damages. A civil case must identify an actionable wrong and satisfy the requirements of the particular claim.

Federal law, including 42 U.S.C. § 1983, allows people to seek relief when a person acting under color of state law violates their federal rights. Depending on the evidence, claims may involve arrest without probable cause, excessive force, or fabricated evidence that causes an unlawful deprivation of liberty. ( Section 1983)

For a federal Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim, the Supreme Court held in Thompson v. Clark that the favorable termination requirement is satisfied when the prosecution ends without a conviction; an affirmative declaration of innocence is not required. That addresses only one part of the claim. The plaintiff must still establish the remaining elements, including the absence of probable cause and a qualifying deprivation of liberty. ( Thompson v. Clark)

Claims against officers and municipalities also involve different liability standards and immunity defenses. Assessing those issues early helps determine whether a civil rights action is legally supportable. ( Third Circuit civil rights instructions)

Private individuals may also face civil liability. A person who maliciously causes a criminal prosecution without probable cause may be subject to a Pennsylvania malicious prosecution claim if the proceedings terminate favorably and the other requirements are met. Claims arising from accusations or witness statements also require careful review of applicable privileges and immunities. ( Pennsylvania malicious prosecution principles)

People injured by assault, battery, or other wrongful conduct may have civil claims against the responsible person and, where a separate legal duty and breach can be established, other responsible parties. A criminal conviction is not always necessary. Civil claims generally use a preponderance of the evidence standard, meaning more likely than not. A civil action may also seek losses that criminal restitution does not fully cover. ( Civil remedies for crime victims)

Depending on the claim and the proof, recoverable damages may include medical and counseling expenses, lost earnings, pain and suffering, emotional distress, and other legally recognized losses caused by the wrongful conduct. A successful claim requires evidence connecting those losses to the defendant’s actions. Records of treatment, employment losses, and the events themselves can be central to establishing the value of a case. ( Civil remedies and financial recovery)

In appropriate federal civil rights cases, punitive damages may be available against individual defendants for malicious conduct or reckless indifference to protected rights. Municipalities are not subject to punitive damages under Section 1983. ( Third Circuit damages instructions)

A court may also award reasonable attorney’s fees to a prevailing civil rights plaintiff under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The available recovery depends on the legal claim, the evidence, and the defendants involved. ( Section 1988)

Prompt review matters. Some civil filing deadlines can begin running before a criminal case ends. Preserving video, messages, photographs, witness information, medical records, and court documents can help protect a potential claim while the facts are still available. ( Third Circuit discussion of claim accrual)

At CDM LAW, we bring trial preparation and careful analysis to both criminal defense and civil litigation. If you have been harmed by unlawful police conduct, malicious prosecution, an assault, or another civil wrong, we can evaluate the evidence, explain your options, and determine whether a claim for monetary damages is available. Our work begins with understanding what happened and identifying the legal steps that can move your case forward.

To discuss your matter with CDM LAW and trial attorney Christopher D. Mandracchia, call 610-994-0281 or visit cdmattorneys.com.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Every case depends on its facts and applicable law. This article provides general information and does not create an attorney-client relationship.