Charges refiled hours after district judge dismissed case against Plains Township man accused of disrupting county election board meeting
Apr. 16—WILKES-BARRE — Within hours after charges against Joseph D. Granteed were dismissed related to shoving a Luzerne County sheriff deputy and disrupting a county election board meeting, prosecutors refiled the same exact charges against him on Wednesday.
This time, Granteed will receive the criminal complaint via summons instead of the first time when he was arrested and taken for a preliminary arraignment before a district judge.
District Judge Donald Whittaker of Nanticoke after a preliminary hearing held at Luzerne County Central Court dismissed two counts each of simple assault and harassment and one count each of disrupt meeting and disorderly conduct against Granteed, 66, of Plains Township.
Granteed was charged after after he was physically removed from the March 19 county election board meeting by sheriff deputies Jerry DeHaza and Ryan Morgans after being instructed by county Manager Romilda Crocamo.
"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 an waste taxpayer funds on this nonsense," stated Granteed's attorney, Matthew T. Muckler.
During Wednesday's preliminary hearing that began at approximately 10 a.m., DeHaza prosecuted without an assistant district attorney and testified to events of the March 19 election board meeting.
DeHaza said Granteed spoke before the election board and was told by Election Board Chairwoman Christine Boyle his three minutes were up and to sit down.
Granteed made several remarks directed at election board member Rick Morelli as he walked away from the podium to a seat as Morelli also asked Granteed questions.
DeHaza said he approached Granteed and asked to go outside the meeting room at the same time he waived his arms in a gesture to exit the room.
"He verbally said I have no authority to do anything," DeHaza said.
DeHaza said he wanted to calm the situation and left the meeting room to notify Sheriff Corporal Wanda Babula. DeHaza and Babula returned to Granteed instructing him to leave the room but Granteed refused.
DeHaza said Crocamo then instructed to have Granteed removed resulting in a "hands-on" approach.
When DeHaza said he put his hands on Granteed, Granteed responded by shoving him.
DeHaza did not produce the video of the meeting showing Granteed shoving him.
Muckler introduced the video showing Granteed's public address to the election board that illustrated Boyle advising him that his three minutes had expired as Morelli responded to Granteed with a question as Granteed walked from the podium to a seat.
Muckler, in a strategic move, did not play the video showing DeHaza going "hands-on" in response to Crocamo directing Granteed be removed, which resulted in Granteed's arm shove onto DeHaza.
DeHaza was denied a request by Whittaker to have Muckler show the video that depicts Granteed shoving him.
"That's beyond the scope of my cross-examination," Muckler said in successfully objecting to DeHaza's request to show the video illustrating the shove.
Whittaker did not waste any time in dismissing the case against Granteed, which took place at about 10:35 a.m.
About four hours later, prosecutors refiled the charges against Granteed with the second preliminary hearing scheduled on May 28.
After Wednesday's hearing, Granteed provided a statement to the Times Leader.
"I went there with the intent of exercising my First Amendment right to be critical of my representatives. For some reason they didn't like what I said, or how I said it, and they held it against me," Granteed stated.
Granteed thanked Muckler stating, "The truth came out."
Granteed stated he will continue to monitor county election board meetings through the remote viewing option but does not expect to immediately attend in person.
"I am not sure what could happen at this point; whether there will be retaliation," Granteed stated.
Benjamin R. Herring, president of Citizens Advisory of Pennsylvania, issued this statement after Wednesday morning's preliminary hearing.
"We are pleased with today's dismissal of charges from Judge Whittaker as they further solidify the fundamental right of all citizens to scrutinize elected officials. The first amendment absolutely and unequivocally allows for public officials to be called upon to address issues under their purview, and while some may not like that concept, id does not give them the right to restrict someone's speech. Citizens Advisory of Pennsylvania will always protect our fellow citizens constitutional rights, and today's ruling is a testament to that," Herring stated.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Appeals court hands AP an incremental loss in its attempt to regain its access to Trump events
Digging deep into free-speech precedents in recent American history, a federal appeals panel handed The Associated Press an incremental loss on Friday in its continuing battle with the Trump administration over access by its journalists to cover presidential events. By a 2-1 margin, judges on the three-judge U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington granted Trump a stay in enforcement of a lower-court ruling that the administration had improperly punished the AP for the content of its speech — in this case not renaming the Gulf of Mexico to Trump's liking. The news outlet's access to events in the Oval Office and Air Force One was cut back starting in February after the AP said it would continue referring to the Gulf of Mexico in its copy, while noting Trump's wishes that it instead be renamed the Gulf of America. For decades, a reporter and photographer for the AP — a 179-year-old wire service whose material is sent to thousands of news outlets across the world and carried on its own website, reaching billions of people — had been part of a 'pool' that covers a president in places where space is limited. The decision itself was aimed only at whether to continue the stay. But the majority and dissenting opinions together totaled 55 pages and delved deeply into First Amendment precedents and questions about whether places like the Oval Office and Air Force One were, in effect, private spaces. Trump posted about the decision on the Truth Social platform shortly after the decision: 'Big WIN over AP today. They refused to state the facts or the Truth on the GULF OF AMERICA. FAKE NEWS!!!' And White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, one of the defendants in the AP's lawsuit, posted on X after the decision came down that it was a 'VICTORY!' and would allow more media to access the president beyond the 'failing legacy media.' She added: 'And by the way, @AP, it's still the Gulf of America.' An AP spokesman said that 'we are disappointed in the court's decisions and are reviewing our options.' One possibility is seeking an expedited review of the full case on its merits. President given wide latitude by court majority Judges Gregory G. Katsas and Neomi Rao agreed in Friday's ruling with Trump's assertion that it's up to the president to decide who gets into spaces like the Oval Office — and he can take into account the viewpoint of journalists he allows. That's related to AP's assertion that the ban amounts to a legal principle known as 'viewpoint discrimination.' 'If the president sits down for an interview with (Fox News') Laura Ingraham, he is not required to do the same with (MSNBC's) Rachel Maddow,' Rao wrote in the opinion. 'The First Amendment does not control the president's discretion in choosing with whom to speak or to whom to provide special access.' In deciding on a stay, the judges considered the likelihood of which side would win the case when Trump's full appeal is taken up, probably not for a few months. In that situation, a different panel of appeals court judges will hear it. Katsas and Rao were both appointed to the federal court by Trump in his first term. Judge Cornelia T.L. Pillard, who dissented on Friday, was appointed by former President Barack Obama. Pillard wrote that there's no principled basis for exempting the Oval Office from a requirement that a president not engage in viewpoint discrimination. There's nothing to stop the majority's reasoning from being applied to the press corps as a whole, she wrote. In that case, it's not hard to see future Republican White Houses limiting the press covering them to the likes of Fox News, and Democrats to MSNBC, she wrote. 'More to the point, if the White House were privileged to exclude journalists based on viewpoint, each and every member of the White House press corps would hesitate to publish anything an incumbent administration might dislike,' Pillard wrote. The bumpiness between Trump and the press is longstanding Since the original ruling, the White House has installed a rotation system for access to small events. AP photographers are usually included, but text reporters are allowed in much less frequently. A study earlier this year showed Trump has spoken to the press more often in the first 100 days of his administration than any of his predecessors back to Ronald Reagan. But he's much more likely to speak to a small group of reporters called into the Oval Office than at a formal briefing or press conference — to which AP journalists have been admitted. Through Leavitt, the White House has opened up to many more conservative news outlets with a friendly attitude toward the president. In her dissent, Pillard rejected the assertion by the White House and her colleagues that the president suffers damage if news outlets not aligned with his views are permitted into certain restricted spaces to watch the government function. The majority though, insisted that the president, as the head of the executive branch, has wide latitude in that respect. Wrote Rao: 'The Oval Office is the President's office, over which he has absolute control and discretion to exclude the public or members of the press.'
Axios
2 hours ago
- Axios
Appeals court allows White House AP ban to continue
A panel of judges from a U.S. federal appeals court on Friday said parts of the White House's ban on the Associated Press could remain, dealing a devastating blow to the AP. Why it matters: Press freedom advocates are closely watching the AP's case for any precedents it could set around free speech protections for journalists. What they're saying: In a statement, the AP said, "We are disappointed in the court's decision and are reviewing our options." White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt called the ruling a victory in a post on X. "As we've said all along, the Associated Press is not guaranteed special access to cover President Trump in the Oval Office, aboard Air Force One, and in other sensitive locations," she wrote. Catch up quick: The AP sued three Trump administration officials in late February for blocking its reporters from events like Oval Office meetings and Air Force One press pools, citing a violation of its First Amendment rights. The White House said it barred the AP for refusing to change the term "Gulf of Mexico" to "Gulf of America" in its journalism. The AP said it didn't make the change so as not to cause confusion amongst its global readership. A judge rejected the Associated Press' emergency motion to rescind the White House ban shortly after he sought more details on the circumstances surrounding the case. In April, a federal judge sided with the Associated Press, declaring that under the First Amendment, the government can't bar journalists from certain government events because of their viewpoints. The Trump administration appealed the federal judge's ruling shortly thereafter. How it works: The recent decision allows most of the White House's ban of the AP to go back into effect while the case is still litigated. The White House barred AP reporters from presidential spaces like the Oval Office and Air Force One. The panel of three judges — two of which were Trump appointees — ruled that those spaces aren't subject to First Amendment protections, but allowed a lower court ruling that said the White House must allow access to larger spaces, like the East Room, to the AP.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court lets Trump block AP from some White House spaces for now
A federal appeals court ruled Friday that the Trump administration may ban The Associated Press from the Oval Office and other limited spaces for now, pausing a judge's order to return the wire service's access. In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia temporarily blocked U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden's April 8 order deeming unlawful AP's exile from the press pool, a small group of journalists who document the president's movements and statements in and around the White House. The White House's exclusion of AP stemmed from the outlet's refusal to use the term Gulf of America in its popular stylebook. 'The White House is likely to succeed on the merits because these restricted presidential spaces are not First Amendment fora opened for private speech and discussion,' Judge Neomi Rao wrote in an opinion joined by Judge Gregory Katsas, both appointees of President Trump. 'The White House therefore retains discretion to determine, including on the basis of viewpoint, which journalists will be admitted.' The judges said that, without a stay, the government would suffer irreparable harm because the injunction 'impinges on the President's independence and control over his private workspaces.' McFadden, also a Trump appointee, ordered the Trump administration to reinstate AP's access to the Oval Office, Air Force One and other small spaces that hold a limited number of officials and journalists. The AP's spot in the president's press pool has traditionally been secured daily, both at the White House and when the president is traveling. Its reporters are usually granted access in a tradition dating back decades. 'The AP and the district court again lean heavily on the history of the press pool as an institution,' Rao wrote. 'But the AP cannot adversely possess a seat in the Oval Office, no matter how long its tradition of access.' The panel did not pause the portion of McFadden's order restoring AP's access to the East Room, noting that it does not share the 'hallmarks' of spaces like the Oval Office. In a dissenting opinion, Judge Cornelia Pillard said that participation in the press pool or broader White House press corps has never been conditioned on a news organization's viewpoint 'until now.' 'The panel's stay of the preliminary injunction cannot be squared with longstanding First Amendment precedent, multiple generations of White House practice and tradition, or any sensible understanding of the role of a free press in our constitutional democracy,' the Obama appointee wrote. The Justice Department had argued that the spaces from which the White House sought to exclude the AP are not a press facility like the Brady Press Briefing Room and are intended for the president's personal use. Plus, presidents have the 'personal autonomy' to decide to whom they reveal their minds. Charles Tobin, a lawyer for the AP, argued that the White House can't single out an outlet for exclusion from the pool based solely on its viewpoints, though he acknowledged that it's the president's prerogative to revoke AP's daily spot in the press pool. After McFadden ruled in the AP's favor, the White House removed the spot typically reserved for wire services from the press pool, instead making those outlets eligible for selection as part of the pool's daily print-journalist rotation. Patrick Maks, a spokesperson for AP, said in a statement, 'we are disappointed in the court's decision and are reviewing our options.' The Hill requested comment from the White House. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
