Field Notes · Sworn Witness Account · Not Yet an Achievement
SWORN WITNESS ACCOUNT — ADA ADVOCATE
COUNSEL CONDUCT, CONTINUANCES, AND COURTROOM ACCESS
COMMONWEALTH v. MILLER · CP-15-CR-0003501-2022
✍ SIGNED · NOTARIZED · HARD COPY IN TRANSIT
Jul 14, 2026
CP-15-CR-0003501-2022
▸ Witness — Who He Is and Why He Was There
The affiant served as Miller’s ADA encourager throughout proceedings before Chester County Court of Common Pleas. His presence was necessitated by the Chester County Courthouse’s refusal — when directly requested by the ADA Administrator — to provide accommodations for Miller’s use of ADA-approved assistive devices anywhere in the courthouse, including denial of CART (Communication Access Realtime Translation) during all proceedings.
The affiant was present beginning with Miller’s first appearance involving Defense Attorney Dodd, and at all subsequent attorney appearances. He was present in private meetings with legal representatives when requested to move from the courtroom to a private room. In hallway conversations, he stood directly next to Miller throughout, placing a hand on his shoulder when needed. On a few occasions he intervened when counsel escalated in the public hallway — and noted that on some of those occasions, East Pikeland Police Department officers Dan Corbo and Matt Paris were also present and intervened to de-escalate counsel.
The affiant was present beginning with Miller’s first appearance involving Defense Attorney Dodd, and at all subsequent attorney appearances. He was present in private meetings with legal representatives when requested to move from the courtroom to a private room. In hallway conversations, he stood directly next to Miller throughout, placing a hand on his shoulder when needed. On a few occasions he intervened when counsel escalated in the public hallway — and noted that on some of those occasions, East Pikeland Police Department officers Dan Corbo and Matt Paris were also present and intervened to de-escalate counsel.
▸ The Continuance Pattern — Firsthand Account
Pattern — When Miller Was Informed
When Miller was made aware of a proposed continuance in advance, the affiant describes his position as exclusively consistent — he objected. When not informed, the continuance often proceeded without his review. The affiant describes Miller as believing that pushing back against his legal representative would be perceived as escalatory and potentially undermining the job counsel should be performing — a belief Miller and the affiant discussed directly, and one that was not silent.
The docket records numerous continuances attributed to the defense. The affiant’s account describes the mechanism by which those continuances were obtained in cases where Miller was not pre-informed.
Observed Pattern — How Motions Were Filed
The affiant describes Harmelin’s pattern as follows: “Mr. Harmelin would grab a piece of paper, scribble on it, flash it before Mr. Miller (not affording him or I to review the document), approach the court clerk and state that it was a defense motion for continuance. Where the judge would grant the motion. Mr. Miller and I would subsequently in the following days go to the clerk of court to retrieve the motion.”
The affiant affirms he personally witnessed more than four encounters where East Pikeland Police officers interacted with the prosecution in the courtroom — and then moved to a private room. This included Detective Juisti on two occasions, Dan Corbo on one occasion, and Matt Paris on one occasion.
▸ “This Is My Show” — Firsthand Account
The Exchange — As the Affiant Recalls It
The affiant confirms the exchange occurred on more than one occasion, in the public hallway just outside the courtroom. He describes one instance in detail: Miller inquired whether Harmelin had spoken with Officer Falgiatore regarding witness preparation. Harmelin stated he was aware of a pressing issue related to Falgiatore that would preclude his ability to testify. Miller asked: “Are you saying that Mr. Falgiatore told you he won’t testify?”
The affiant states Harmelin became visibly angry and yelled at Miller with words to the effect of:
The affiant states Harmelin became visibly angry and yelled at Miller with words to the effect of:
“This isn’t a murder trial! This is a low level case, why are you being so difficult. This is MY show, I run how it goes, you don’t like it, get new counsel!”
— Lawrence Harmelin, as recalled by affiant · public courthouse hallway · approximate date: immediately pre-trial
Miller’s Response — As the Affiant Recalls It
Harmelin attempted to leave abruptly. Miller responded calmly: “Larry, I don’t know what I said to prompt that response, I do not want or desire new counsel, I just asked a question, did Anthony tell you he won’t testify.” Harmelin ignored Miller and walked back into the courtroom.
The affiant confirms this pattern — counsel dismissing Miller’s specific questions about witness preparation, investigation status, and the search warrant — was not isolated but recurred in almost every conversation in public, private meeting rooms, and at Harmelin’s office.
▸ ADA Access Denial and Assistive Device Confiscation
Device Confiscation — Sheriffs Deputy
The affiant documents one instance where a sheriff’s deputy unlawfully confiscated Miller’s ADA device, resulting in a missing memory card. The affiant was with Miller when he subsequently went to the prothonotary to identify the deputy and obtain a copy of the deputy’s sworn oath and duties. Courthouse staff routinely declined to provide names or badge numbers when asked.
Since the courthouse did not permit equal access for those with disabilities, Miller could not always capture an objective record of communications. When in public or using his computer or phone he was able to use assistive devices to capture recordings with consent. The affiant confirms Harmelin refused to review the lawful basis of the founding claim of defiant trespass.
▸ Attorney-Client Privilege Waiver Claims
Two Instances — Dodd and Harmelin
On two occasions involving both Dodd and Harmelin, when the affiant was present in a private room with Miller and his counsel, both attorneys directly stated that Miller was choosing to waive attorney-client privilege by having the ADA encourager present.
Miller responded that as long as he was being honest and truthful, he didn’t fear waiving privilege — and that having the ADA encourager in the room was a way to ensure his rights might be protected and provide an objective witness, given the courthouse’s denial of ADA-required equal access.
The affiant states: “It is my personal opinion that was potentially an intimidation tactic for Mr. Miller and myself.” In the first occurrence, Miller said to the affiant: “Jim, if you are uncomfortable with what is happening you can go. But it would be his preference for me to stay.” The affiant notes a pre-established understanding that he would rarely speak in such meetings, and that Miller could say “Jim, be quiet” and he would comply.
Miller responded that as long as he was being honest and truthful, he didn’t fear waiving privilege — and that having the ADA encourager in the room was a way to ensure his rights might be protected and provide an objective witness, given the courthouse’s denial of ADA-required equal access.
The affiant states: “It is my personal opinion that was potentially an intimidation tactic for Mr. Miller and myself.” In the first occurrence, Miller said to the affiant: “Jim, if you are uncomfortable with what is happening you can go. But it would be his preference for me to stay.” The affiant notes a pre-established understanding that he would rarely speak in such meetings, and that Miller could say “Jim, be quiet” and he would comply.
▸ Document Status and Custody
The affiant’s signed and notarized statement is in the private custody and control of Mr. Miller.
The digital copy is preserved in the archive. The original notarized hard copy will not be publicly presented.
The digital copy is preserved in the archive. The original notarized hard copy will not be publicly presented.
▸ Not Yet Asserted
That any continuance was filed in violation of Miller’s express direction, as a formal legal claim.
That Harmelin’s statements constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, as a matter of adjudicated law.
That the device confiscation by the sheriff’s deputy constituted an unlawful act, as a matter of established fact.
That the privilege waiver characterizations by counsel were legally incorrect or constituted intimidation, as an asserted claim.
That the East Pikeland officer courtroom interactions with the prosecution affected the proceedings, as an asserted conclusion.
This page preserves firsthand sworn testimony. It does not assert legal conclusions from that testimony.
That Harmelin’s statements constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, as a matter of adjudicated law.
That the device confiscation by the sheriff’s deputy constituted an unlawful act, as a matter of established fact.
That the privilege waiver characterizations by counsel were legally incorrect or constituted intimidation, as an asserted claim.
That the East Pikeland officer courtroom interactions with the prosecution affected the proceedings, as an asserted conclusion.
This page preserves firsthand sworn testimony. It does not assert legal conclusions from that testimony.
▸ Cross-Reference — Related Registry Entries
Achievement #012 — No Due Process, No Colloquy: The affiant’s account of continuances filed without Miller’s review, and the “this is my show” exchange, directly corroborate the record gaps documented in this achievement regarding waiver and representation.
Achievement #013 — Not Provided Equal Access (28 CFR Part 35): The affiant’s own presence and the courthouse’s refusal of ADA accommodations are firsthand corroboration of the ADA access denial documented in this achievement.
Achievement #015 — 1925(a) Opinion Discrepancies: The affiant’s account of continuances proceeding without Miller’s awareness or consent is relevant to the discrepancy between the trial court’s characterization of counsel conduct and what the primary record reflects.
Achievement #017 — Sworn Affidavit vs. Filed Motion: The affiant’s direct observations of the relationship between Miller and Harmelin provide contemporaneous context for the waiver question addressed in this achievement.
Achievement #013 — Not Provided Equal Access (28 CFR Part 35): The affiant’s own presence and the courthouse’s refusal of ADA accommodations are firsthand corroboration of the ADA access denial documented in this achievement.
Achievement #015 — 1925(a) Opinion Discrepancies: The affiant’s account of continuances proceeding without Miller’s awareness or consent is relevant to the discrepancy between the trial court’s characterization of counsel conduct and what the primary record reflects.
Achievement #017 — Sworn Affidavit vs. Filed Motion: The affiant’s direct observations of the relationship between Miller and Harmelin provide contemporaneous context for the waiver question addressed in this achievement.
▸ Update Log
Jul 14, 2026 — Digital copy of signed and notarized affidavit received. Affiant confirmed execution by email. Hard copy in transit; to be received upon affiant’s return to Pennsylvania. This entry will be updated upon physical receipt of the original.
▸ IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice, legal opinion, or professional counsel of any kind. This page preserves the substance of a sworn firsthand witness account. It does not assert that any specific legal violation occurred, and does not offer the account as a legal conclusion of any kind.
If you are navigating a legal matter, please consult a licensed attorney. The author is a private citizen documenting a personal experience through publicly available processes.
MERAKI PMA
Exercise Freedom
© Meraki 2026 · All Rights Reserved · CulturalContrarianPMA.org
All achievements grounded in RTK-produced primary sources and public court records.
Pennsylvania Right-to-Know Law · 65 P.S. §§ 67.101 et seq.
Not legal advice · Not mental health advice · Educational purposes only
Administrative Literacy Series · CulturalContrarianPMA.org
Pennsylvania Right-to-Know Law · 65 P.S. §§ 67.101 et seq.
Not legal advice · Not mental health advice · Educational purposes only
Administrative Literacy Series · CulturalContrarianPMA.org