[Based in part on reporting from the Times Leader article: “Case dismissed, charges refiled against man accused of disrupting election board meeting”]
Attorney Matthew Muckler of Muckler Law is representing a Luzerne County man charged following an incident during a public Luzerne County Election Board meeting. Mr. Granteed was initially charged with two counts each of simple assault and harassment, along with single counts of disorderly conduct and disrupting a public meeting. All charges were dismissed at the preliminary hearing after the court found that the evidence was insufficient to support prosecution.
Later that same day, prosecutors refiled the same set of charges following the dismissal at the preliminary hearing. The case is now active once again, and we continue to advocate for our client’s rights as it moves through the legal system.
This matter raises broader questions about free speech, public accountability, and the limits of law enforcement authority in civic spaces – especially when those spaces are intended to support open, democratic participation.
Background: What Happened at the Meeting
The incident occurred on March 19, 2025, during a regularly scheduled Luzerne County Election Board meeting. Our client, Joseph D. Granteed, participated in the public comment portion of the meeting and was advised by the board chair that his three minutes to speak had ended. After being advised that his time had expired, he stepped away from the podium and briefly responded to a board member’s follow-up question.
At that point, Sheriff Deputy Jerry DeHaza approached Mr. Granteed and asked him to leave the room. Mr. Granteed responded by questioning the deputy’s authority to remove him. Deputy DeHaza exited the room and returned with Sheriff Corporal Wanda Babula. When Mr. Granteed did not comply with further instructions to leave, County Manager Romilda Crocamo directed the deputies to remove him.
The deputies then attempted to physically escort Mr. Granteed from the room. During that interaction, Deputy DeHaza later testified that Mr. Granteed shoved him. Following the incident, Mr. Granteed was taken into custody and formally charged with the offenses listed above.
Charges Dismissed by District Judge
A preliminary hearing was held before District Judge Donald Whittaker at Luzerne County Central Court. During the hearing, Deputy DeHaza testified about the events that took place but did not present video footage showing the alleged shove that formed the basis of the simple assault charge.
Attorney Matthew Muckler, representing Mr. Granteed, introduced video footage that showed his client addressing the board and returning to his seat. He did not present footage of the subsequent removal, which the prosecution later requested to be shown. The court sustained Attorney Muckler’s objection, finding that the requested segment fell outside the scope of cross-examination.
After reviewing the available evidence and testimony, Judge Whittaker dismissed all charges, concluding that the prosecution had not met the legal burden required to move the case forward at this stage.
The County’s Decision to Refile
Despite the dismissal, the Luzerne County District Attorney’s Office refiled the same charges just hours after the preliminary hearing concluded. Unlike the original filing – which resulted in Mr. Granteed’s arrest and arraignment – the refiled complaint was issued via summons. A second preliminary hearing is scheduled for late May.
In response to the refiling, Attorney Matthew Muckler of Muckler Law, who continues to represent Mr. Granteed, issued the following statement:
“We are pleased with the District Judge’s decision. Judge Whittaker saw that no crime was committed or could have been committed given Mr. Granteed’s First Amendment right to hold our elected officials accountable. We are saddened that the County has decided to refile these charges and waste taxpayer funds on this nonsense.”
Why This Matters
This case highlights an important issue for anyone who attends a government meeting: What are the limits of lawful speech and participation, and when does dissent become criminalized?
Public meetings are a cornerstone of democratic engagement. They are intended to provide space for constituents to question, challenge, and hold officials accountable. When a person is removed, arrested, and prosecuted for doing just that – particularly in the absence of clear evidence of criminal behavior – it raises serious concerns.
While not all conduct at public meetings is protected under the First Amendment, the legal threshold for criminal charges must be met with credible, compelling evidence. When charges are dismissed by a judge and then immediately refiled without new evidence, it prompts critical questions about fair process, judicial discretion, and the appropriate use of prosecutorial resources.
Moving Forward
Muckler Law remains committed to defending Mr. Granteed as this case proceeds through the court system. We will continue to advocate for his rights and ensure that the legal process remains fair, transparent, and grounded in the principles of constitutional law.
If you or someone you know is facing criminal charges in Pennsylvania – whether related to a public meeting, protest, or any other alleged offense – Muckler Law is here to help. We offer practical legal guidance, strategic defense, and a commitment to standing up for our clients when their rights are on the line. Reach out today.
Read the full Times Leader article here.
Disclaimer: This blog is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The case discussed remains ongoing, and no outcome is implied. For legal help, please consult an attorney about your specific situation.
