Representing Non-Professionals
When you’re looking for results during this difficult time in your life, Stanton D. Levenson, P.A. Law Offices, in Pittsburgh, works hard on your behalf with expertise and understanding. We give every case we take personalized attention in order to achieve the best possible outcome.
Attorneys Stanton D. Levenson and Amy B. Levenson Jones collaborate on every case they take. Stan brings experience, proven techniques and straight-talk. Amy brings youth, new thinking and a female perspective.
Below are just a few of the criminal cases we’ve helped people resolve through hard work, perseverance and experience.
| DESCRIPTION: Defendant was charged with the killing of a drug dealer based on testimony from the shooter that the Defendant paid him to do it. |
OUTCOME: The defendant was acquitted after aggressive cross-examination exposed numerous lies and inconsistencies. |
| DESCRIPTION: Defendant was charged with killing his abusive older brother with whom he and his elderly mother resided. |
OUTCOME: He was convicted of manslaughter after expert psychiatric testimony established that he suffered from “battered brother syndrome.” |
| DESCRIPTION: Defendant, a union member, was charged with assaulting a police officer during a confrontation while picketing. |
OUTCOME: He was acquitted on the basis of photos showing the impossibility of the officer`s version of the incident. The Defendant then sued the city and was awarded damages. |
| DESCRIPTION: Defendant, owner of a travel agency specializing in tour packages to Disneyland, was charged with tax offenses based on off shore bank accounts used to bribe airline officials for lower fares. |
OUTCOME: Defendant was acquitted of 90% of the alleged tax loss based upon testimony from a travel industry expert and an expert tax witness. |
| DESCRIPTION: Defendant was convicted of possession with the intent to distribute a substantial quantity of cocaine. |
OUTCOME: He was sentenced below the guidelines based, in part, upon the District Attorney having the case removed to federal court to avoid an anticipated favorable ruling on Defendant`s motion to suppress evidence. |
| DESCRIPTION: Defendant was charged with felony possession of cocaine during an airport search. |
OUTCOME: His motion to suppress evidence was granted due to proof of racial profiling. |
| DESCRIPTION: Defendant was charged with being the source of supply for 15 years to a large drug distribution network. |
OUTCOME: He was acquitted by a federal jury after aggressive cross-examination of the cooperating witnesses. |
| DESCRIPTION: Defendant, a well known entrepreneur, was convicted of income tax violations. |
OUTCOME: His sentence of 5 months incarceration was substantially below the guidelines based upon his extraordinary community service. |
| DESCRIPTION: Defendant, a long-time bank employee, was convicted of embezzling in excess of $300,000.00. |
OUTCOME: She was sentenced substantially below the guidelines to a half-way house and work release based upon expert testimony establishing her addiction to gambling. |
| DESCRIPTION: Defendant was convicted of cocaine distribution. |
OUTCOME: He was sentenced below the guidelines to house arrest and work release based upon a downward departure for the extraordinary delay between the commission of the offense and his arrest. Psychiatric testimony confirmed the harm he suffered during the intervening period. |
DESCRIPTION:
Defendant was charged with the killing of a drug dealer based on testimony from the shooter that the Defendant paid him to do it.
OUTCOME:
The defendant was acquitted after aggressive cross-examination exposed numerous lies and inconsistencies.
DESCRIPTION:
Defendant was charged with killing his abusive older brother with whom he and his elderly mother resided.
OUTCOME:
He was convicted of manslaughter after expert psychiatric testimony established that he suffered from “battered brother syndrome.”
DESCRIPTION:
Defendant, a union member, was charged with assaulting a police officer during a confrontation while picketing.
OUTCOME:
He was acquitted on the basis of photos showing the impossibility of the officer`s version of the incident. The Defendant then sued the city and was awarded damages.
DESCRIPTION:
Defendant, owner of a travel agency specializing in tour packages to Disneyland, was charged with tax offenses based on off shore bank accounts used to bribe airline officials for lower fares.
OUTCOME:
Defendant was acquitted of 90% of the alleged tax loss based upon testimony from a travel industry expert and an expert tax witness.
DESCRIPTION:
Defendant was convicted of possession with the intent to distribute a substantial quantity of cocaine.
OUTCOME:
He was sentenced below the guidelines based, in part, upon the District Attorney having the case removed to federal court to avoid an anticipated favorable ruling on Defendant`s motion to suppress evidence.
DESCRIPTION:
Defendant was charged with felony possession of cocaine during an airport search.
OUTCOME:
His motion to suppress evidence was granted due to proof of racial profiling.
DESCRIPTION:
Defendant was charged with being the source of supply for 15 years to a large drug distribution network.
OUTCOME:
He was acquitted by a federal jury after aggressive cross-examination of the cooperating witnesses.
DESCRIPTION:
Defendant, a well known entrepreneur, was convicted of income tax violations.
OUTCOME:
His sentence of 5 months incarceration was substantially below the guidelines based upon his extraordinary community service.
DESCRIPTION:
Defendant, a long-time bank employee, was convicted of embezzling in excess of $300,000.00.
OUTCOME:
She was sentenced substantially below the guidelines to a half-way house and work release based upon expert testimony establishing her addiction to gambling.
DESCRIPTION:
Defendant was convicted of cocaine distribution.
OUTCOME:
He was sentenced below the guidelines to house arrest and work release based upon a downward departure for the extraordinary delay between the commission of the offense and his arrest. Psychiatric testimony confirmed the harm he suffered during the intervening period.
We’re Ready To Help You
Contact us today to schedule a consultation regarding your case by calling 412-552-3231 or sending us a message online. With our unique father-daughter approach to defense work, you’ll benefit from having two generations of criminal defense attorneys fighting as one on your behalf.