UPDATE: Habeas Corpus Denied in Rossi Case

UPDATED 5/8/12 @ 10:45 p.m.

Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County docket sheets indicate the request for writ of habeas corpus has been denied by Judge Joseph A. Smyth as of April 23.

The writ was for the charges of: Aggravated Assault by Vehicle while DUI, Aggravated Assault by Vehicle, DUI: Controlled Substance (impaired ability, first offense), and Recklessly Endangering another person.

No further significant action has been taken.

ORIGINAL POST: March 13, 2012

A Habeas Corpus hearing was held in Norristown at the Montgomery County Courthouse (Court of Common Pleas) on March 7 for the Megan Rossi case, which was taken under advisement by Judge Joseph A. Smyth.

During the hearing, Rossi was in attendance, along with her attorney Matthew Taylor Wilkov of Rubin, Glickman, Steinberg & Gifford, P.C. in Colmar. Wilkov called for the hearing to dispute charges of: Aggravated Assault by Vehicle while DUI, Aggravated Assault by Vehicle, DUI: Controlled Substance (impaired ability, first offense), and Recklessly Endangering another person.

According to Wilkov, Smyth has not rendered a decision on the matter yet.

Rossi had 11 different charges placed upon her as a result of an accident, which occurred in November. Rossi was allegedly driving her vehicle on Laver Road when the vehicle hopped the curb and who was on a ride-along lawnmower, paralyzing him and leaving him in a condition where he could only communicate by blinking his eyes.

Toxicology reports in Rossi's system and further investigation revealed Rossi may have been operating her cell phone near or during the time of the accident.

Wilkov's main defense during the hearing was that responding officers on the day of the accident never indicated Rossi appeared under the influence of anything, and no field sobriety test was issued. Wilkov also noted Rossi was given a "math testing" two hours after the accident and she issued correct answers to the questions.

With that being said, when the National Medical Service came back with the toxicology, the report specifically stated, according to Wilkov, that the series of compounds found in Rossi's system were all below the "therapeutic levels" and "none of them came close to the level of intoxication."

Wilkov went on to say that the report uses the terminology: "based on the content of the substances found in the case," it can be stated with reasonable scientific evidence that "if the person showed signs of impairment, then it could be attributed to the cause" for the crash. Wilkov explained the report gives a "conditional opinion" of If-Then, and on the transcript of the accident report, there was no evidence of impairment.

Smyth asked Wilkov, "What about driving across the lawn?"

Wilkov responded with precedent from a 1943 case in which it was determined that an investigation shouldn't start with the accident and work backwards.

"If my client hadn't hit someone, you would be asking where the signs of impairment were," Wilkov said. "Without the accident, there is no evidence to suggest impairment."

Wilkov also said during the hearing that Rossi took the substances found in her system the night before the accident. The accident happened around noon the next day.

The prosecution offered the argument through notes of testimony of Rossi's preliminary hearing, where responding Officer Christopher Iochum stated Rossi's demeanor alternating between hysterical and nonchalant after the accident. The prosecutor also said the accident itself is proof of impairment.

Other rebuttals issued by the prosecution included: the drugs weren't taken by themselves, but were a "cocktail of narcotics." The prosecution also said there were no signs of breaking on the day of the accident, such as skid marks. As for the use of a cellular phone, the prosecution offered the explanation that, "speaking on a phone while intoxicated and driving adds to the distraction."

Smyth ended the proceedings by saying he would read the summary again. He has yet to make a decision.

Charges that were not disputed by the defense were: DUI Controlled Substance (metabolite, first offense), Reckless Driving, Careless Driving, Carless Driving (serious bodily injury), Disregard to Traffic Lane (single), Operating a Vehicle without Valid Inspection.

In the meantime, the pre-trial conference has been scheduled for April 17 at 9 a.m. According to the Legal Dictionary at TheFreeDictionary.com, a pre-trial conference is "a meeting of the parties to a case conducted prior to trial. The conference is held before the trial judge or a magistrate, a judicial officer who possesses fewer judicial powers than a judge."