As a 1982 graduate of Bloomsburg High School and a 1986 cum laude graduate of the University of Scranton with a degree in political science, I am proud to have received my Juris Doctorate from the University of Dayton in 1989. I have been a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania since that time and am admitted to practice in the US Federal Court, Third Circuit, Middle District, as well as the United States Supreme Court.
I am an active member of several professional organizations, including the Columbia/Montour Bar Association, the Northumberland County Bar Association, and the Lycoming County Bar Association. Additionally, I am a member of the Pennsylvania Association of Defense Lawyers and the National Association of Defense Lawyers.
With decades of experience in civil and criminal litigation, I have built a strong reputation for my skills in the courtroom, both in the Courts of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and in the Appellate Courts. I am dedicated to providing high-quality legal representation to my clients and fighting for their rights and interests.
Education
University of Dayton School of Law
Juris Doctor, 1989
University of Scranton
Bachelor of Science in Political Science, Cum Laude, 1986
Bloomsburg High School
High School Diploma, 1982
Professional Licenses & Admissions
Licensed Attorney in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, since 1989
Admitted to Practice in the U.S. Federal Court, Third Circuit, Middle District
Admitted to Practice in the United States Supreme Court
Professional Memberships
Columbia/Montour Bar Association
Northumberland County Bar Association
Lycoming County Bar Association
Pennsylvania Association of Defense Lawyers
National Association of Defense Lawyers
Legal Experience
Civil and Criminal Litigation
Extensive experience in civil and criminal litigation within the Courts of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Notable cases in both state trial courts and appellate courts.
Appellate Courts
Significant experience in handling appeals within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, including multiple successful outcomes.
Skills & Concentrations
Litigation: Comprehensive experience in civil and criminal litigation, including trial strategy, motions practice, and courtroom advocacy.
Appellate Practice: Skilled in appellate brief writing and oral argument with a track record of success in Pennsylvania's appellate courts.
Legal Research & Analysis: Strong ability to analyze complex legal issues and provide strategic counsel to clients.
Client Representation: Dedicated to providing high-quality representation, ensuring the protection of clients' rights at all stages of the legal process.
The appellate case Commonwealth v. Crossley (1998) resulted in a significant clarification of the notice requirement under the Tender Years Hearsay Act (42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5985.1).
Attorney Gregory T. Moro successfully argued that the prosecution's failure to provide adequate notice of their intention to use hearsay statements violated this statute. This case established that the notice must be direct, specific, and go beyond ordinary discovery to ensure the defendant has a fair opportunity to prepare, creating a new legal precedent for the application of this law in Pennsylvania.
The appellate case Commonwealth v. Hess (2002) resulted in a significant legal development regarding the application of the Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b).
Attorney Moro successfully argued that a defendant cannot be penalized for failing to file a 1925(b) statement if they were not properly served with the trial court's order to do so. This case clarified the mandatory nature of service and docketing procedures under Rule 114, establishing that noncompliance with these procedures precludes the waiver of appellate rights.
In the case Commonwealth v. Stone (2017), Gregory T. Moro successfully argued on behalf of the appellee, Donald Stone, leading to the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirming the trial court's decision to suppress Stone's oral and written statements.
The court found that Stone was in custody for Miranda purposes and had not been read his Miranda rights before making the statements. Attorney Moro argued that these statements were made during a custodial interrogation without the necessary procedural safeguards, and the court agreed. The court held that the statements were not voluntary but were instead the result of police conduct intended to elicit an inculpatory response. This decision was upheld despite the Commonwealth's appeal, which failed to demonstrate any legal error in the suppression order.
This victory for the accused emphasized the protection of an individual's constitutional rights against self-incrimination under custodial interrogation.
