You are here

Justice News

Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney’s Office
Middle District of Pennsylvania

Friday, March 29, 2013

Harrisburg Man Federally Charged With Firearms Offenses As Part Of On-Going Partnership To Respond To Violent Crime In Harrisburg

     The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that Carl Murphy, Jr., age 32, of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania was indicted Wednesday by a federal grand jury in Harrisburg charging him with two counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

     According to United States Attorney Peter J. Smith, the charges are the result of an on-going partnership with the Dauphin County District Attorney’s Office that was announced in August 2012 to help respond to a surge of violent crime within the city.  The charges against Murphy are a result of allegations that on both March 7, 2012, and October 13, 2012 Murphy possessed a firearm in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania after having previously been convicted of a felony crime.  The firearms were both recovered by the Harrisburg Police Bureau.

     This case is being jointly investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Harrisburg Police Bureau.  This case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Meredith A. Taylor.

     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 guilty is imposed by the Judge after consideration of the applicable federal sentencing statutes and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

     In this particular case, the maximum penalty under the federal statute is 10 years’ 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.

Updated April 9, 2015