JOHN KRAVITZ, ESQ | CASE RESULTS
John Kravitz has been a criminal defense attorney for thirty years. In that span of time, he has successfully litigated cases in all areas of criminal defense work. He has earned not guilty verdicts from cases ranging from DUI to Attempted Murder. In addition, John has represented clients in Homicide cases, and he has an expertise in DUI cases.
CRIMINAL LAW EXPERIENCE
Criminal Attorney 30 Years-Montgomery County Public Defender’s Office, tried all manner of cases ranging from DUI to Homicide.
Chief DUI Team 2 Years-Montgomery County Public Defender’s Office.
DUI specialist Mental Health Team 2 Years-Montgomery County Public Defender’s representing mentally ill defendant’s in criminal court.
Work in Mental Health Court, including mental health involuntary commitment hearings and volunteering in Behavioral Health Court.
Juvenile Attorney-2 Years Montgomery County Public Defender’s Office.
Appellate Work- 10 Years Montgomery County Public Defender’s Office.
NOTABLE TRIAL VERDICTS OF NOT GUILTY
Commonwealth v. Flowers-Case Number 7681-2012. Client was a college student with, no prior record who was charged with Felony Robbery-found not guilty after a jury Trial.
Commonwealth v. Rhem-Case Number 636-2006. Client was charged with Attempted Murder. A knife perforated the Complaining Witness’s Aorta -found not guilty after a jury trial.
Commonwealth v. Sutton-Case Number 6600-1989. Client was a young man who was charged with assault found not guilty after jury trial
NOTABLE DUI VERDICTS OF NOT GUILTY
Commonwealth v. Delgado-Case Number 8202-2015 Not Guilty of DUI guilty of possession of a small amount of marijuana.
Commonwealth v. Davis-Case Number 1546-2013 Not Guilty of DUI.
Commonwealth v. Taamilo -Case Number 2735-14 After a bench trial defense motion to dismiss granted. Case dismissed.
Commonwealth v. Stilzer-Case Number 4839-1989 After a bench trial defense motion to dismiss granted. Case dismissed.
MENTAL HEALTH VERDICTS OF NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY
Commonwealth v. PT-Case Number 2768-2009 Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity after bench trial
Commonwealth v. RB-Case Number 1543-2012 Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity
Commonwealth v. DR-Case Number 5207-2005 Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity
Commonwealth v. HB-Case Number 8502-8502-2001, Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity
Commonwealth v. CD-Case Number 2442-1999 Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity
SOME ADDITIONAL VERDICTS OF NOT GUILTY
Commonwealth v. Adams-Case Number 5485-2018
Commonwealth v. Clark-Case Number 3719-2016. Case resulted in a mistrial and was subsequently dismissed
Commonwealth v. Olinick-Case Number 3510-2016. This case involved a dispute between neighbors in which the police were called, and the client was arrested and charged with theft. Client was found not guilty after a bench trial
Commonwealth v. Johnson-Case Number 8945-2011
Commonwealth v. Carter-Case Number 1550-2012
Commonwealth v. Marshall-Case Number 888-2010
Commonwealth v. Hans-Case Number 2365-2006
Commonwealth v. Ciarrocchi-Case Number 7378-2003
Commonwealth v. Mitchell-Case Number 6192-1995
Commonwealth v. Mitchell-Case Number 4952-1996. Client was confronted with a group of police officers in front of his home and a fight ensued. He was arrested and charged with 16 counts of assault on a police officer and possession of a firearm. Client was found not guilty of 13 of the 16 charges, including all counts of firearm possession, and guilty of only three minor charges.
Commonwealth v. Hicks-Case Number 4567-1994
Commonwealth v. Every-Case Number 3939-1990. Client was charged with dealing drugs, found not guilty after jury trial
Commonwealth v. Thornton -Case Number 2967-1990
SUCCESSFUL APPEALS
Commonwealth v. Bell Court of Common pleas Number # 6924-1997. This case was an outright dismissal by the Pennsylvania Superior Court on the issue of double jeopardy. It is very rare to get an outright dismissal on appeal.
Feilke v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole 648 A.2d 131 (1994). Appeal granted by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania this was an appeal based on technical grounds of time credit calculation on an inmate’s sentence.