05/16/2019 | Press release | Distributed by Public on 05/16/2019 12:34
SCRANTON - The United States Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that a federal grand jury returned a second superseding indictment on May 14, 2019, charging Phillip Finn, Jr, age 48, of Plains Township, Pennsylvania, with attempted witness tampering.
According to United States Attorney David J. Freed, the second superseding indictment alleges that on January 31, 2019, Finn instructed a witness to tell law enforcement that he/she does not remember certain events with the intent to cause the witness to withhold testimony during Finn's trial.
On July 11, 2017, Finn was indicted on charges of stalking, interstate communications and malicious damage to federal property by fire. The indictment alleged that between March 3, 2017 and March 6, 2017, Finn used Facebook, Google and his cell phone to engage in a course of conduct, to harass and intimidate two Luzerne County Children and Youth Services employees. On October 2, 2018, an additional count of Interstate Communications and the charge of use of fire to commit a felony were filed against Finn.
The case was investigated by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Wilkes-Barre City Police Department and the Luzerne County District Attorney's Office. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jenny P. Roberts is prosecuting the case.
Indictments and Criminal Informations are only allegations. All persons charged are presumed to be innocent unless and until found guilty in court.
A sentence following a finding of guilt is imposed by the Judge after consideration of the applicable federal sentencing statutes and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
The combined maximum penalty under federal law for these offenses is life imprisonment, a term of supervised release following imprisonment, and a fine. Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the Judge is also required to consider and weigh a number of factors, including the nature, circumstances and seriousness of the offense; the history and characteristics of the defendant; and the need to punish the defendant, protect the public and provide for the defendant's educational, vocational and medical needs. For these reasons, the statutory maximum penalty for the offense is not an accurate indicator of the potential sentence for a specific defendant.
# # #