Skip to main content
Press Release

New York Man Charged With Disorderly Conduct In Federal Courthouse

For Immediate Release
U.S. Attorney's Office, Middle District of Pennsylvania

SCRANTON - The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced today that disorderly conduct charges have been filed in Scranton against a Binghamton, New York man resulting from his alleged actions occurring at the conclusion of a detention hearing.  The criminal information charges that Karl E. Kelly, age 35, engaged in threatening and tumultuous behavior, and used obscene language within the William J. Nealon Federal Building and United States Courthouse in Scranton.    

According to United States Attorney Peter Smith, Kelly attended the detention hearing of a friend who was charged with allegedly committing an armed bank robbery.  At the conclusion of the hearing on June 25, 2015, Senior United States District Judge James M. Munley ordered the defendant in that case detained pending trial.  As Kelly was leaving the courtroom, he allegedly used obscene language and made a threatening comment about a third person.

The investigation was conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and prosecution is assigned to Assistant U.S. Attorney John Gurganus.

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 maximum penalty under federal law is 90 days imprisonment and a $300 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 August 12, 2015