CP-64-CR-0000272-2024 — Court of Common Pleas of Wayne County, 22nd Judicial District
This document is a procedural audit. It identifies departures from standard criminal procedure, judicial conduct rules, and rules of professional responsibility as reflected in the case record. All findings are sourced to specific documents.
Source materials: Criminal docket sheet, all 16 pages, printed June 12, 2026 (cited as “Docket p.X”); First Amended Complaint, Cordaro v. Howell et al., Case 3:26-cv-01041-JKM (M.D. Pa.), filed April 30, 2026 (cited as “Am. Comp.”); Incident Report DA-138-24, Det. Peter C. Hower (cited as “Incident Report”); Pre-Sentence Investigation prepared by Ryan Altemier, printed October 29, 2024 (cited as “PSI p.X”); Commonwealth’s Restitution Recommendation, dated November 5, 2024 (cited as “Restitution Rec.”); Fred Howell billing records, Exhibit 4-4 (cited as “Howell Billing”); DA’s conflict letter to AG Michelle Walsh, Exhibit 4-3 (cited as “DA Conflict Letter”); Guideline Sentence Form, printed October 29, 2024 by Ryan Altemier (cited as “Guideline Form”); Victim Impact Statement by Rosina Cordaro (Exhibit 4-4 at 12–16); Loan Quach deed and Charlmaine-to-Rosina deed, Exhibit 4-2 (cited as “Deed Exhibits”); Robert L. Olver Obituary, Tri-County Independent, February 2, 2016; Philip Cordaro Jr. obituary (death date May 8, 2024); Ellen Memorial Health Care Center Facebook post (August 22, 2025, Tammy Altemier retirement); Wayne County Public Defender’s Office staff directory; news reports (WNEP, River Reporter, Local 21/Fox 56); publicly available legal and business records.
FINDING 1: The DA personally signed the criminal information in his father’s case
What the record shows
On July 1, 2024, the Information was filed by “Howell, A.G.” (Docket p.4). District Attorney A.G. Howell personally signed the charging document in a criminal case that originated from a complaint filed by his own father, Alfred J. “Fred” Howell Sr.
The Incident Report identifies Fred Howell as both “Complainant” and “Attorney for the Victim and Complainant.” Fred Howell first contacted Chief County Detective Peter C. Hower on April 24, 2024. Three and a half weeks later, on May 17, 2024, Howell told Hower that Joseph Cordaro was “not cooperating with the civil process” and requested criminal charges. The Incident Report states the “DA approves charges” on the same date.
A.G. Howell worked at his father’s law firm, Howell & Howell (later Howell, Howell & Krause), for approximately twenty years before winning election as District Attorney in 2019. He took office in January 2020. The firm’s office was at 109 Ninth Street, Honesdale. When A.G. left for the DA’s office, Fred continued practicing at the same address.
Why it matters
Under Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7, a concurrent conflict of interest exists when a lawyer’s professional judgment will be or reasonably may be adversely affected by responsibilities to or interests of a third person. Under the Pennsylvania District Attorneys’ Association Ethics Advisory, prosecutors must avoid even the appearance of a conflict that would undermine public confidence in the impartial administration of justice.
A DA who signs a criminal information originating from his own father’s complaint had a disqualifying personal interest. The conflict was not disclosed to the defendant at the time of charging. The Cordaro case was never referred to the Attorney General’s office. A.G. Howell prosecuted it from charging through sentencing, collected restitution covering his father’s legal bills, and nolle prossed the charge on April 1, 2025 — ten months after he signed the information and five months after he obtained the sentence.
Six days after the nolle prosequi, on April 7, 2025, A.G. Howell wrote to Executive Deputy Attorney General Michelle K. Walsh requesting that her office assume jurisdiction over a separate complaint — an allegation by Janette Kammeier that Fred Howell had improperly withheld client files (DA Conflict Letter, Exhibit 4-3). In that letter, Howell stated: “I believe the District Attorney’s Office has a conflict of interest to investigate this complaint because the complaint involves my father, Alfred J. Howell, Esquire, and my former law office, which I left over five (5) years ago.” The letter does not mention the Cordaro case. But it is a contemporaneous, written admission by the sitting DA that his office could not impartially handle matters involving his father — the same father whose complaint launched, and whose legal bills were paid through, the Cordaro prosecution. A.G. Howell recognized the conflict in April 2025. It existed, unacknowledged, from May 2024 forward.
FINDING 2: The investigation was conducted by the DA’s own employees, not an independent agency
What the record shows
The docket identifies the arresting agency as “Wayne County, Detectives” and the arresting officer as “Hower, Peter C.” (Docket p.1). Chief County Detective Peter Hower is a county detective employed by and reporting directly to the Wayne County District Attorney’s Office.
The investigation was not conducted by Honesdale Borough Police, the Pennsylvania State Police, or any independent law enforcement agency. The DA’s own employees investigated and arrested Joseph Cordaro at the DA’s direction.
The First Amended Complaint alleges that when Hower arrested Cordaro on May 22, 2024, he told Cordaro he was “sorry” and “had to arrest him because Fred said the civil matter wasn’t going well” (Am. Comp. ¶31, Doc. 4 at 14).
Why it matters
No outside law enforcement body evaluated the complaint or exercised independent judgment. The entire chain ran through one family’s institutional control: Fred Howell filed the complaint with Hower, who reported to Fred’s son, who approved the charges and signed the Information (see Finding 1).
FINDING 3: Judge Edwards presided over a case initiated by the DA she supervised
What the record shows
President Judge Janine Edwards served as Wayne County District Attorney before being elected to the bench in November 2017. She took the bench in January 2018. A.G. Howell was her Assistant District Attorney. She supervised him. He succeeded her as DA in January 2020.
Edwards’ legal career began at the firm of John J. Martin in Honesdale. Her own judicial candidacy announcement stated: “In late 1997, Edwards began private practice with Attorney John J. Martin in Honesdale” (Wayne Independent, January 4, 2017). Martin’s firm is the same “family-owned” Law Office of John Martin at 1022 Court Street where Martin II, a Wayne County Assistant Public Defender, now practices. Martin is the current president of the Wayne County Bar Association. Mary Martin Moran, who shares the Martin surname and billed 68.7 hours on the civil and guardianship cases underlying the restitution demand (see Finding 10), is a named partner at Fred Howell’s firm. Her brother, Woodrow Martin, later represented Cordaro (see Finding 24). Edwards presided over a case in which the Martin surname appears on the complainant’s legal team, the defense, the public defender’s office, and the bar association her mentor leads.
The 22nd Judicial District has two Common Pleas judges: President Judge Edwards and Judge Matthew Meagher, who joined the bench in December 2021. The Cordaro case was assigned to Edwards from the outset. The docket contains no entry reflecting a request for reassignment to Meagher, a request for a visiting judge, a referral to the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, or any consideration of recusal.
Edwards accepted the nolo contendere plea (Docket p.9), imposed sentence including restitution covering her former ADA’s father’s legal bills (Docket pp.2–3), denied early termination of probation on a nolle prossed charge (Docket p.12), and granted the nolle prosequi (Docket p.11).
Why it matters
Under Canon 2.11 of the Pennsylvania Code of Judicial Conduct, a judge shall disqualify in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Canon 2.11(A)(1) specifically addresses situations where the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of facts that are in dispute.
Visiting-judge assignments are routine in two-judge districts under Pa.R.Crim.P. 105 and AOPC protocols. Edwards did not recuse. The docket reflects no disclosure of her prior supervisory relationship with A.G. Howell, no disclosure of her decades-long professional relationship with Fred Howell (both served as past presidents of the Wayne County Bar Association), no disclosure that she began her legal career at the firm of John J. Martin whose family members appear on both sides of this case, and no consideration of whether a visiting judge should have been assigned.
FINDING 4: The public docket conceals the presiding judge
What the record shows
The criminal docket for CP-64-CR-0000272-2024, printed June 12, 2026, contains the following blank or inadequate fields:
The “Judge Assigned” field on page 1 is blank (Docket p.1). The “Judge Name” column in the Calendar Events section is blank on all seven calendar entries, including the Argument hearing of October 16, 2024 (where the nolo contendere plea was entered), the Sentencing of November 7, 2024, and the Motions Hearing of December 4, 2024 (Docket p.1).
The Initial and Final Issuing Authority fields both list Retired MDJ Kay L. Bates (Docket p.1), a Magisterial District Judge, not the Common Pleas judge who accepted the plea and imposed sentence.
Judge Janine Edwards’ name appears deeper in the docket. She is identified as the sentencing judge in the Disposition section (Docket p.2) and first appears in the Entries section on June 27, 2024, when she issued an Order continuing the formal arraignment (Docket p.4). But the docket’s designated header fields for judicial assignment are empty.
Why it matters
Under Pennsylvania’s Unified Judicial System case management standards, the “Judge Assigned” field exists so the public, the bar, disciplinary authorities, and reviewing courts can identify which judicial officer presided. A reviewer who pulls this docket sees no judge on the cover page. They’d have to read into the entries section to learn that President Judge Janine Edwards presided.
FINDING 5: Three families were positioned across every institution in the case
What the record shows
Howell family: Fred Howell (complainant, attorney for Rosina, estate administrator, alleged 5% estate fee). A.G. Howell (DA, signed Information, signed restitution recommendation, filed nolle prosequi, wrote conflict letter ten months after charging).
Martin family: John J. Martin (current president, Wayne County Bar Association; practices at Law Office of John Martin, 1022 Court Street, Honesdale). John J. Martin II (Wayne County Assistant Public Defender — did not represent Cordaro; his significance is his family connection to Mary Martin Moran, whose billable hours became the restitution demand; practices at the same Law Office of John Martin; the firm describes itself as a “family-owned law firm”). Mary Martin Moran (shares the Martin surname; partner at Howell Moran PLLC, billed hours on civil and guardianship cases, restitution based in part on her hours, co-counsel for Rosina in estate matters; Woodrow Martin’s sister per Facebook). Woodrow Martin (Mary’s brother, entered appearance for defendant after conviction, filed early termination motion that was denied).
Altemier family: Tammy Altemier (Director of Nursing/Services, Ellen Memorial, 38 years at the facility, hired and trained the nursing staff; retired August 2025). Ryan Altemier (Wayne County Adult Probation, prepared PSI, printed Guideline Sentence Form, Tammy’s son per Olver obituary). Mandy Altemier (Wayne County Adult and Children’s BCM Supervisor, Ryan’s wife, inside county human services).
Edwards connection: President Judge Janine Edwards began her legal career in private practice with John J. Martin in Honesdale in 1997 (Wayne Independent, 01/04/2017). She later supervised A.G. Howell as her ADA. She and Fred Howell are both past presidents of the Wayne County Bar Association; Martin is the current president. She presided over this case from arraignment through nolle prosequi and early termination denial — a case in which her former ADA prosecuted, her former mentor’s family members appeared on both sides, and the complainant was the father of the DA she trained.
The complaint originates with Fred Howell. Mary Martin Moran does the legal work. Charlmaine is at Tammy Altemier’s facility. Hower, reporting to A.G. Howell, makes the arrest. Edwards presides. Ryan Altemier prepares the PSI and his department collects supervision fees. The DA demands restitution covering Mary Martin Moran’s billable hours. Edwards accepts. After full payment and civil settlement, the DA nolle prosses the charge. Woodrow Martin enters as Cordaro’s attorney and files for early termination. Edwards denies it in four days.
Why it matters
No single connection documented above, taken alone, establishes misconduct. But at no point in the proceeding did an independent actor exercise independent judgment. The complainant’s attorney is the DA’s father. The DA’s former supervisor is the judge. The nursing director at the crime scene is the probation officer’s mother. The defendant’s post-conviction attorney is the brother of the complainant’s law partner. The public defender’s office (though it did not handle this case), the bar association, the probation department, and the estate administration all include members of the same three families.
FINDING 6: Criminal charges tethered to the civil case timeline
What the record shows
The Incident Report contains three entries that map the criminal case directly to the civil dispute:
April 24, 2024: Fred Howell contacts Hower and files the complaint. This was the same day Rosina Cordaro, represented by Fred Howell, filed a civil suit against Joseph Cordaro in Wayne County Court of Common Pleas (Am. Comp. ¶26, Doc. 4 at 12).
May 3, 2024: Fred Howell tells Hower the civil matter is “tentatively resolved” and that he will “let me know if anything changes.” The criminal process paused.
May 17, 2024: Fred Howell tells Hower that Joseph Cordaro is “not cooperating with the civil process” and requests criminal charges. The DA approves charges the same day.
According to the First Amended Complaint, “not cooperating with the civil process” meant that Cordaro had retained attorney Jeffrey Treat and filed an Answer contesting the civil suit (Am. Comp. ¶29, Doc. 4 at 13).
Cordaro was arrested on May 22, 2024 (Docket p.1). The charges were filed on May 20, 2024 (Docket p.1).
Separately: Phil Cordaro, Joseph’s brother, died on May 8, 2024. Phil had, according to the complaint, attended a 2017 meeting at Howell’s office where Charlmaine expressed concerns about Rosina’s financial management, and had firsthand knowledge of Charlmaine’s wishes regarding the property (Am. Comp. ¶¶17–18, Doc. 4 at 8–9). His death falls between two entries in the Incident Report timeline: May 3 (Howell tells Hower the civil case is “tentatively resolved”) and May 17 (Howell requests criminal charges). Phil was a corroborating witness who could no longer testify when charges were filed twelve days after his death.
Additional context: In 2023, before any criminal complaint was filed, Rosina Cordaro appeared on WNEP’s Newswatch 16 and publicly announced that she wanted to retire, that she “couldn’t find a buyer,” and that Cordaro’s Restaurant would be torn down. The criminal complaint itself states “The victim, Charlmaine Cordaro, owns Cordaro’s Restaurant. She owns the real estate, liquor license and all personal and business property.” But Rosina spoke about the property as her own retirement decision, not Charlmaine’s. The AutoZone contract for $570,000 had been signed in April 2022 — a year before the broadcast — making Rosina’s claim that she “couldn’t find a buyer” inconsistent with the record. Either the deal had already collapsed by 2023, which undercuts the Affidavit of Probable Cause’s claim that Joseph’s April 2024 actions caused “$500,000.00, plus or minus, in expected profits” in damages, or Rosina misrepresented the situation on camera. The earliest documented evidence of Charlmaine’s cognitive impairment is the Bennett letter dated March 20, 2024. In 2023, no documented incapacity existed to trigger the springing POA under which Rosina claimed authority over the property.
Why it matters
The three-entry timeline in the Incident Report is a contemporaneous record, written by the detective himself, showing that the decision to charge was gated by Fred Howell’s assessment of his civil case. When the civil case was going well, the criminal case paused. When the defendant retained counsel and contested the civil suit, the criminal case accelerated. This is the fact pattern analyzed in Commonwealth v. Williams, 463 A.2d 1113 (Pa. Super. 1983), and related abuse of process authority: the use of criminal process to extract civil outcomes.
FINDING 7: The DA’s office confiscated a phone containing exculpatory video, then filed time-barred felonies from the same device
What the record shows
According to the First Amended Complaint, on April 19, 2024, Joseph Cordaro allegedly videotaped his conversation with Charlmaine at Ellen Memorial Healthcare Center (Am. Comp. ¶24, Doc. 4 at 11). The complaint describes what the video allegedly captured: Joseph and Charlmaine discussed the restaurant, Joseph’s desire to keep it in the family, and Rosina’s desire to sell. A hospital notary allegedly entered the room, asked Charlmaine several questions, and Charlmaine answered them correctly. The notary asked why she was signing the documents. Charlmaine allegedly replied, “because I love my son.” The notary allegedly witnessed Charlmaine sign a deed and power of attorney.
According to the complaint, Joseph made this recording openly. Hospital staff were allegedly aware. A notary was allegedly present and participating. The complaint states the recording was made for a specific legal purpose: to document Charlmaine’s capacity at the time she signed.
Joseph was arrested on May 22, 2024 (Docket p.1). The First Amended Complaint states that after Joseph’s arrest, Hower and A.G. Howell “confiscat[ed] Joseph’s cell phone and f[ound] an application that could record telephone calls” (Am. Comp. ¶32, Doc. 4 at 14–15).
On October 9, 2024, the DA’s office filed 19 counts of “Intercept Communications” and “Disclose Intercepted Communications” under 18 Pa.C.S. § 5703, alleging violations occurring on March 30, 2016. These are third-degree felonies carrying up to seven years each.
The statute of limitations for a third-degree felony in Pennsylvania is five years (42 Pa.C.S. § 5552(a)). March 30, 2016 to October 9, 2024 is eight years and six months. The charges were time-barred on their face. The complaint states this directly: “the statute of limitations for this ‘crime’ had long expired. The defendants were just saber rattling” (Am. Comp. ¶32).
The 19 counts were filed seven days before Joseph’s plea hearing. Joseph withdrew his omnibus pretrial motions and entered a nolo contendere plea on October 16, 2024 (see Finding 13).
What the record does not show
The record does not confirm whether the April 2024 video of Charlmaine was stored on the confiscated phone. It does not show whether the DA’s office reviewed the video’s contents. It does not show whether the video was disclosed to the defense under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). It does not show whether the video still exists.
The plea hearing transcript (produced April 29, 2026) and sentencing transcript (same date) are now in the court record but have not been reviewed for this audit. They may address what happened to the phone, the video, and any Brady disclosures.
Why it matters
The video, if it shows what the complaint describes, is exculpatory. The criminal charge was “Securing Execution of Documents by Deception,” premised on the theory that Charlmaine lacked capacity and Joseph exploited her confusion. A video showing Charlmaine answering questions correctly, articulating her intent, and explaining her reason for signing directly contradicts that theory.
Joseph’s phone was confiscated. That phone contained, at minimum, a call-recording application. It may also have contained the April 2024 video. The DA’s office examined the phone’s contents closely enough to identify an eight-year-old recording app and file 19 felony counts based on it. The question is what else the DA’s office saw on that phone and what it did with it.
If the recording was made as the complaint describes, openly videotaping a conversation you’re participating in, in the presence of hospital staff and a notary, is not a wiretap violation under Pennsylvania law. The PA Wiretap Act (18 Pa.C.S. § 5703) covers the interception of oral communications where the speaker has a reasonable expectation of privacy (18 Pa.C.S. § 5702). A conversation recorded openly in a healthcare facility, with a notary present and staff moving through the room, would not meet that threshold. Silent video is not covered by § 5703 at all. Even video with audio falls outside the statute when there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
The 19 wiretapping charges were not based on the April 2024 video. They were based on phone recordings from 2016. But the DA’s office reached those 2016 recordings by searching a device that may have contained proof the underlying criminal charge was baseless. If the phone held the video and the DA’s office saw it, two questions follow: Was it disclosed to the defense? And did the DA’s office file 19 time-barred felonies from the same device that contained evidence undermining the prosecution’s own case?
FINDING 8: Restitution set at the DA’s father’s legal bills
What the record shows
On November 5, 2024, two days before sentencing, the Wayne County District Attorney’s Office filed a Restitution Recommendation demanding $19,911.17. The document is signed by “A.G. HOWELL, DISTRICT ATTORNEY.”
The $19,911.17 figure corresponds to Fred Howell’s billing records (Howell Billing). The billing covers two matters: File #24-131 (the civil case, Rosina v. Joseph Cordaro) and File #24-231 (the guardianship petition). Billing entries include work by Fred Howell at $300/hour and Mary Martin Moran at $225/hour.
Judge Edwards imposed $9,955.50, approximately half the requested amount (Docket p.3).
Why it matters
Under 18 Pa.C.S. § 1106, restitution must reflect actual losses caused by the criminal conduct. The criminal charge was M2 Securing Execution of Documents by Deception (18 Pa.C.S. § 4114), relating to documents executed at Ellen Memorial on or around April 20, 2024. Fred Howell’s billing records include: civil complaint drafting, preliminary objections, memoranda of law, contempt motions, settlement conferences, meetings with multiple attorneys, and guardianship proceedings. These are civil litigation expenses arising from a family estate dispute, not losses flowing from the specific criminal conduct.
The victim listed on the restitution is “Charlmaine Cordaro,” but the dollars flow to Fred Howell’s firm. Edwards accepted half the amount without any on-record explanation for the reduction or any analysis of which expenses, if any, were attributable to the criminal conduct rather than the civil dispute.
FINDING 9: Restitution billing included Fred Howell’s hours meeting with the District Attorney
What the record shows
The civil case billing submitted as Exhibit 4-4 (File #24-131) includes a line item for Fred Howell at $300/hour: “Attorney Alfred J. Howell: Attend numerous meetings with client; correspond via text and email with client; correspond and meet with Attorneys Jeff Treat, Joe Rydzewski, and Daniel Daniluk, realtor Eric Erhardt, and District Attorney; strategize with Attorney Martin Moran; review all research compiled by Attorney Martin Moran; review all pleadings drafted by Attorney Martin Moran; attend Preliminary Injunction hearing; attend status conference with court; attend settlement conference.” This block billed 7.0 hours at $300/hour for $2,100.
The “District Attorney” referenced in the billing is A.G. Howell, Fred Howell’s son. Fred Howell billed time for meetings with his own son’s office as part of his civil litigation work. Those hours were included in the $19,911.17 restitution demand the DA filed against Cordaro.
Why it matters
Finding 8 addresses the restitution demand as a whole. This finding isolates a specific line item. The DA’s father billed for time spent meeting with the DA, bundled those hours into a legal invoice, and the DA’s office then demanded the defendant pay the invoice as criminal restitution. The self-dealing is documented in Fred Howell’s own billing records, filed in federal court as Exhibit 4-4.
Whether any portion of the $2,100 block was specifically attributable to the DA meeting versus the other activities listed is impossible to determine because Howell lumped them into a single entry. The block billing format itself obscures which hours went where, but the billing entry explicitly lists the District Attorney among the people Howell met with as part of this work.
FINDING 10: Mary Martin Moran generated the majority of the bills the DA converted into criminal restitution
What the record shows
Fred Howell’s billing records contain two invoices. Both list work by Fred Howell at $300/hour and Mary Martin Moran at $225/hour. The breakdown:
On the civil case (File #24-131): Mary Martin Moran billed 34.9 hours at $225/hour for $7,852.50. Fred Howell billed 7.0 hours at $300/hour for $2,100.00.
On the guardianship petition (File #24-231): Mary Martin Moran billed 33.8 hours at $225/hour for $7,605.00. Fred Howell billed 5.0 hours at $300/hour for $1,500.00.
Combined: Mary Martin Moran billed 68.7 hours for $15,457.50. Fred Howell billed 12.0 hours for $3,600.00. Mary Martin Moran’s time accounts for 85% of the total billable hours and 81% of the total legal fees across both invoices. The remaining $853.67 was expenses. The full amount, $19,911.17, was demanded as criminal restitution by the DA’s office.
The firm letterhead on both invoices lists “Mary O. Moran, 2020,” indicating she was admitted to the Pennsylvania bar in 2020. She is a named partner at Howell Moran PLLC, Fred Howell’s current firm, at 109 Ninth Street, Honesdale. She and Fred Howell continue to represent Rosina Cordaro in the estate of Charlmaine Cordaro (Wayne County Legal Journal 5/23/2025).
Her brother, Woodrow Martin, later entered an appearance as Joseph Cordaro’s attorney (see Finding 24).
Why it matters
The criminal restitution Joseph Cordaro paid was not primarily Fred Howell’s work product. It was Mary Martin Moran’s. She drafted the civil complaint, the petition for injunction, the amended complaint, the reply to preliminary objections, the memorandum of law, the contempt motion, the guardianship petition, the reply to the Guardian Ad Litem’s filing, the subpoenas, and the reply to James Cordaro’s answer. She conducted witness interviews, coordinated Dr. Bennett’s expert report, and prepared for hearings. Fred Howell attended meetings, reviewed Mary Martin Moran’s work, and showed up for conferences and hearings.
The DA’s office demanded Joseph Cordaro pay $19,911.17. More than $15,000 of that was Mary Martin Moran’s time. Her brother then represented Joseph Cordaro, the man paying her bills, in a motion for early termination that was denied in four days (see Finding 20). The defendant’s attorney was the sister of the lawyer whose billable hours the defendant was ordered to pay. Whether Woodrow Martin disclosed this to Joseph Cordaro is not in the record.
FINDING 11: Civil settlement operated as a condition of the criminal plea
What the record shows
The First Amended Complaint alleges that the plea was conditioned on Joseph Cordaro agreeing to a civil settlement with Rosina Cordaro (Am. Comp. ¶¶36–37, Doc. 4 at 16). The Commonwealth’s Restitution Recommendation independently corroborates this: its four numbered demands include returning property, revoking POA documents, and rescinding the defendant’s POA, all civil remedies bundled into a criminal sentencing filing. The billing records submitted with the plea agreement include line items for settlement conferences and settlement agreement drafting.
According to the complaint, the civil settlement followed the plea, and Fred Howell continued to represent Rosina in a post-settlement enforcement action (Am. Comp. ¶38, Doc. 4 at 17). When Rosina allegedly refused to pay Joseph his share of the proceeds, Joseph filed a separate enforcement action. During a mediation in that enforcement action, the complaint alleges Fred Howell told Joseph’s attorney Jeff Treat: “don’t make me have my son arrest your client again” (Am. Comp. ¶39, Doc. 4 at 17). Attorney Treat, per the complaint, “was stunned at Howell’s cavalier abuse of process.”
Why it matters
A criminal plea conditioned on the resolution of a civil dispute between the complainant’s client and the defendant is a package-deal plea subject to heightened voluntariness scrutiny. Commonwealth v. Williams, 463 A.2d 1113 (Pa. Super. 1983). If the alleged mediation threat is substantiated, the coercive linkage between the criminal and civil proceedings is not an inference. It’s an admission, made to an attorney who can authenticate it.
FINDING 12: The “fine only” plea colloquy and the actual sentence
What the record shows
The PSI records that the written nolo contendere plea colloquy, filed by the Commonwealth on October 17, 2024, noted that “the Commonwealth has agreed to a sentence recommendation of a fine only” (PSI p.2).
The actual sentence imposed by Judge Edwards on November 7, 2024, included (Docket pp.2–3):
12 months probation. $500 fine. $9,955.50 restitution to Charlmaine Cordaro. Random drug testing (SOS program). Warrantless personal and property searches (42 Pa.C.S. § 9912). 20 hours community service. Maintain employment. $50/month supervision fee. General conditions of probation.
The gap between “fine only” and the actual sentence is not explained in the available record. The plea hearing and sentencing transcripts were produced on April 29, 2026, after the federal lawsuit was filed, and are now in the court record (Docket p.13).
Why it matters
A defendant who pleads based on a representation that the Commonwealth recommends “a fine only” and then receives probation, restitution, drug testing, warrantless searches, supervision fees, and community service has received a sentence materially different from what was represented. Pa.R.Crim.P. 590 requires a plea to be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
Whether the conditions were imposed as “sentence” or as “conditions of probation” is meaningless to a defendant who was told to expect a fine. The plea colloquy’s language creates a factual basis for challenging the plea’s voluntariness.
FINDING 13: Defendant withdrew omnibus pretrial motions the day before he entered the plea
What the record shows
On September 12, 2024, defense attorney Joseph R. D’Andrea filed Omnibus Pre-Trial Motions (Docket p.6). These motions would have challenged probable cause, evidence admissibility, and potentially the conflict of interest.
On October 9, 2024, seven days before the plea hearing, the DA’s office filed 19 counts of wiretapping against Cordaro.
On October 16, 2024, the docket records an “Order Granting Withdraw of Omnibus Motion by Defendant” (Docket p.9). The same day, the plea hearing was held (Docket p.1). The next day, October 17, 2024, the nolo contendere plea was entered (Docket p.9).
The First Amended Complaint alleges the 19 wiretapping counts were fabricated to coerce the plea (Am. Comp. ¶36, Doc. 4 at 16).
Why it matters
The sequence is: D’Andrea files aggressive pretrial motions. The DA responds with 19 additional felony counts. The defendant withdraws the pretrial motions and enters a plea.
The omnibus motion was the defense’s chance to test the case. A challenge to probable cause could have examined the entire chain from Fred Howell’s complaint through Hower’s investigation to A.G. Howell’s approval. Withdrawal of the motions eliminated the only procedural vehicle for putting the conflict and the investigation on the record.
Whether the 19 wiretapping counts caused the withdrawal is an allegation in the federal complaint, not an established fact. But 19 additional charges filed one week before the plea hearing, followed by immediate withdrawal of pretrial challenges, raises a prosecutorial vindictiveness question under United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368 (1982), and Commonwealth v. Mack, 953 A.2d 587 (Pa. Super. 2008).
FINDING 14: DA nolle prossed the charge after extracting full payment and civil settlement
What the record shows
On April 1, 2025, five months after sentencing, the Wayne County District Attorney’s Office filed a “Motion for Nolle Prosequi” (Docket p.11). Judge Edwards granted it the next day, April 2, 2025, with no hearing indicated on the calendar (Docket p.11).
By that date, Cordaro had entered a nolo contendere plea, agreed to a civil settlement with Rosina, made restitution payments toward Fred Howell’s legal bills, paid a $500 fine, complied with probation, submitted to drug testing, completed community service, and paid supervision fees. The “Penalty Satisfied” entry appears July 9, 2025 (Docket p.12). Total payments: $12,024.73.
Six days after the nolle prosequi, on April 7, 2025, the DA wrote a conflict letter to Executive Deputy Attorney General Michelle K. Walsh — not about the Cordaro case, but about a separate complaint by Janette Kammeier alleging Fred Howell had improperly withheld client files. In that letter, A.G. Howell acknowledged that his office had a conflict of interest because the complaint “involves my father, Alfred J. Howell, Esquire, and my former law office” (DA Conflict Letter, Exhibit 4-3). The letter is discussed in full in Finding 1. The Cordaro case itself was never referred to the Attorney General. The DA prosecuted it, extracted payment, and nolle prossed it without outside review.
Why it matters
The sequence is: charge, extract payment, nolle prosequi. If the case didn’t warrant prosecution in April 2025, the question is what changed between October 2024 and April 2025, other than the defendant’s compliance with every demand.
FINDING 15: Restitution included guardianship litigation unrelated to the criminal charge
What the record shows
The second billing invoice submitted by Fred Howell’s firm covers File #24-231, the guardianship petition. This was a separate legal proceeding initiated by Rosina to obtain guardianship over Charlmaine.
Billing entries for the guardianship case include: guardianship petition drafting, service of process, subpoenas, witness interviews, coordination of Dr. Paula Bennett’s expert report, opposition to Guardian Ad Litem recommendations, trial preparation, and a 5-hour court hearing on October 25, 2024 at $300/hour. The total balance on this invoice alone was $9,323.42.
The guardianship case was a separate civil matter with its own docket number (#24-231). Joseph Cordaro was not a party to it.
Why it matters
Guardianship costs don’t flow from the execution of documents at Ellen Memorial. They flow from a family member’s decision to pursue legal authority over an elderly parent in a separate court proceeding. Including them in a criminal restitution recommendation stretches § 1106 past its statutory limit. Both the DA’s decision to bundle these costs and Edwards’ decision to impose any portion of them are subject to challenge under Commonwealth v. Barger, 956 A.2d 458 (Pa. Super. 2008).
FINDING 16: Dr. Bennett’s incapacity letter was faxed to Howell’s office before it was signed
What the record shows
On March 20, 2024, a letter from Dr. Paula Bennett of Highland Physicians Family Health Center was faxed to Fred Howell’s office (Am. Comp. ¶21, Doc. 4 at 10). The letter states Charlmaine “is cognitively impaired and unable to make decisions in her best interest with regard to her financial and medical affairs due to confusion.” The fax header shows the transmission time: 12:43 PM. The electronic signature line reads: “Electronically signed by PAULA R BENNETT MD on 03/20/2024 at 03:13 PM.”
The letter arrived at Howell’s office two hours and thirty minutes before the doctor signed it.
This letter was attached to Rosina’s civil complaint filed April 24, 2024 (Am. Comp. ¶26, Doc. 4 at 12). It was referenced in the Affidavit of Probable Cause supporting Joseph’s arrest. It was the prosecution’s sole medical documentation of Charlmaine’s incapacity.
Why it matters
A medical letter that reaches an attorney’s office before the doctor signs it suggests coordination. The fax-before-signature sequence indicates the letter may have been solicited by or arranged with Howell’s office and pre-distributed before Bennett formally endorsed it. Whether Charlmaine authorized a HIPAA release directing Dr. Bennett to disclose her health status to Howell is unknown (Am. Comp. ¶22). What prompted the fax is unknown.
This letter was also the document intended to “trigger” the springing power of attorney based on incapacity (Am. Comp. ¶22). It was the only medical evidence in the record supporting the criminal charge. The complaint notes that just two to three months earlier, in January 2024, Charlmaine allegedly signed an AutoZone Sale Agreement extension in her own capacity — not through Rosina’s POA (Am. Comp. ¶20, Doc. 4 at 10). If Charlmaine could sign documents on her own behalf in January 2024, the March 20, 2024 letter’s assertion of incapacity requires explanation.
FINDING 17: Fred Howell prepared, notarized, and later enforced a $1.00 deed transferring the restaurant property to his own client
What the record shows
Exhibit 2 of the First Amended Complaint includes a deed dated January 14, 2021, transferring four parcels of land in the Borough of Honesdale from Charlmaine Cordaro to Rosina Cordaro for $1.00. These four parcels are the restaurant property: Lots 81, 91, 89, and a fourth parcel. This is the property Rosina later contracted to sell to AutoZone for $570,000.
The deed was prepared by “Howell & Howell.” Fred Howell notarized it himself. The notary block reads: “Alfred J. Howell — Notary Public, Wayne County, Commission Number 1075181.” The deed was recorded in Wayne County on January 15, 2021.
Fred Howell represented both parties to this transaction. Charlmaine was his client. Rosina was his client. He drafted the deed, notarized it, and recorded it. The deed transferred four parcels of commercial real estate from one client to another for $1.00. No independent counsel reviewed the transaction on Charlmaine’s behalf. No independent notary witnessed Charlmaine’s acknowledgment.
This deed is the foundation of everything that followed. Rosina’s claim to own the restaurant property rests on it. The AutoZone contract for $570,000 rests on it. The civil suit Rosina filed against Joseph to protect that ownership rests on it. The criminal prosecution Fred Howell initiated through his son’s office to void Joseph’s competing deed rests on it. The restitution demand covering Fred Howell’s legal bills rests on it.
Why it matters
Pa.R.P.C. 1.7(a)(2) prohibits representation where “there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by…a personal interest of the lawyer.” Comment 27 to Rule 1.7 specifically identifies estate planning transactions as an area where conflict questions arise. Pa.R.P.C. 1.8(a) requires that transactions between a lawyer and client be fair, that the client receive written advice to seek independent counsel, and that the client give informed consent.
Fred Howell did not simply witness a deed. He prepared it, notarized it, and later used the chain of title it created as the basis for the civil suit and criminal complaint against Joseph. His son, the DA, prosecuted the case. The $570,000 sale price would generate Howell’s compensation as estate attorney (see Finding 21). The entire enforcement apparatus — civil suit, criminal prosecution, restitution demand, nolle prosequi — traces back to a $1.00 transfer that Howell drafted, notarized, and controlled from both sides.
FINDING 18: Rosina used a springing POA before its trigger condition was met
What the record shows
Charlmaine Cordaro’s power of attorney, allegedly executed January 13, 2012, was “effective upon [her] subsequent incapacity” (Am. Comp. ¶13, Doc. 4 at 7). Rosina did not execute her acknowledgment of the POA until October 6, 2016 (Am. Comp. ¶13).
The next day, October 7, 2016, Rosina signed a deed selling property owned by her parents to “Loan Quach” for $20,000. She signed as “power of attorney for Philip and Charlmaine.” Philip Cordaro Sr. was still alive. The complaint alleges Charlmaine was not incapacitated in 2016 (Am. Comp. ¶14). The earliest medical record suggesting cognitive impairment is Dr. Bennett’s letter of March 20, 2024, eight years later (Am. Comp. ¶19, Doc. 4 at 10).
The Loan Quach deed was prepared by Fred Howell’s firm, “Howell, Howell and Krause.” A.G. Howell Jr. is believed to have been a partner at that firm at the time (Am. Comp. ¶16, Doc. 4 at 8).
Why it matters
Under Commonwealth v. McCullough, 2020 PA Super 72, 230 A.3d 1146, a springing power of attorney’s trigger condition must be satisfied before the agent’s authority becomes effective. Rosina exercised the POA one day after she acknowledged it, while Philip Sr. was alive and Charlmaine was not shown to be incapacitated. The firm that prepared the deed and facilitated this transaction is the same firm whose principal later triggered criminal charges against Joseph for allegedly misusing the same mother’s capacity. The DA’s office prosecuted Joseph for “securing execution of documents by deception” from a cognitively impaired person. It did not investigate Rosina’s prior exercise of the same POA under circumstances where the springing condition appears not to have been met. The firm that prepared the Loan Quach deed was Howell’s firm. The DA who approved Joseph’s charges is Howell’s son. The documents are in the federal case record.
FINDING 19: Felony charge announced publicly, then dropped before docketing
What the record shows
On June 25, 2024, the Wayne County DA’s Office announced two charges against Joseph Cordaro publicly through local media, including Local 21/Fox 56 and the River Reporter. The charges were: Financial Exploitation of an Older Adult (18 Pa.C.S. § 4117, F1, carrying up to 20 years) and Securing Execution of Documents by Deception (18 Pa.C.S. § 4114, M2, carrying up to 2 years).
When the Information was filed on July 1, 2024, only the misdemeanor survived to the docket (Docket p.2). The felony is completely absent. The docket reflects a single charge from the date of filing forward: Count 3, M2, Securing Execution of Documents by Deception (Docket p.2).
Why it matters
A felony carrying up to twenty years’ imprisonment was announced to the public and attached to Joseph Cordaro’s name in news reports across Northeastern Pennsylvania. The reputational damage was immediate. When the charge was quietly dropped before the Information was filed, there was no equivalent public notice.
The sequence is consistent with the felony serving as pressure. The complaint alleges its announcement to the media damaged Cordaro’s catering and banquet business (Am. Comp. ¶65, Count VI, Doc. 4 at 25). Its removal before formal filing allowed the DA to avoid litigating a charge that may not have survived a preliminary hearing. The misdemeanor extracted the plea. The felony did everything else.
FINDING 20: Early termination of probation denied four days after filing, on a nolle prossed charge
What the record shows
On July 24, 2025, attorney Woodrow Martin entered an appearance on behalf of Joseph Cordaro and filed a Motion for Early Termination of Probation (Docket p.12). All financial penalties had been satisfied. The underlying conviction had been nolle prossed three months earlier.
Judge Edwards denied the motion on July 28, 2025 (Docket p.12). Four days. No hearing appears on the calendar. No explanation for the denial is visible in the docket.
Cordaro was forced to serve the full 12 months of probation on a charge the DA’s own office had nolle prossed three months earlier. The docket labels the nolle prosequi “Not Final.” Probation ended with a “Letter From Probation” filed December 31, 2025 (Docket p.12).
Why it matters
The DA used nolle prosequi to undo a conviction that had already been entered, sentenced, and partially served. That is not the standard procedure. Under Pennsylvania practice, nolle prosequi is a pre-trial or pre-conviction action — the DA decides not to pursue charges, or nolle prosses counts the defendant didn’t plead to as part of a plea bargain. One Pennsylvania attorney, asked directly about a post-sentencing nolle prosequi, called it “highly irregular.”
The standard vehicles for undoing a conviction after sentencing are the Post Conviction Relief Act (42 Pa.C.S. § 9541) or a motion to vacate. Both require the court to examine why the conviction is being set aside. A PCRA petition requires the defendant to prove specific grounds — that the plea was unlawfully induced, that there was prosecutorial misconduct, that exculpatory evidence was unavailable. A motion to vacate requires the court to make findings. Either would create a record explaining why a conviction obtained five months earlier needed to be unwound.
A nolle prosequi requires none of that. The DA files a one-line motion. The court grants it. No grounds stated. No findings made. No record of why. The docket entry for this case confirms it: “Motion for Nolle Prosequi filed by Wayne County DA’s Office.” That is the entire record of why a conviction was undone.
The docket labels the result “Nolle Prossed (Post-Disposition)” with the notation “Not Final.” Whatever its legal effect on the conviction, the nolle prosequi did not end the sentence. Probation continued to run. Cordaro remained under state supervision — subject to drug testing through the SOS program, warrantless searches under Title 42 § 9912, $50/month supervision fees, and $250/month restitution payments — for eight more months after the charge was nolle prossed. Edwards denied early termination four days after it was filed, and Cordaro served the remaining five months. The docket does not reflect whether the DA’s office opposed the motion. If A.G. Howell’s office opposed early termination on a charge it nolle prossed, that is an additional data point on the question of ongoing institutional control.
FINDING 21: Fred Howell’s financial interest in the outcome
What the record shows
Fred Howell held three simultaneous roles in matters involving Charlmaine Cordaro’s property: attorney for Rosina Cordaro in the civil suit against Joseph; complainant who initiated the criminal case by contacting Det. Hower on April 24, 2024; and, according to the First Amended Complaint, administrator of Charlmaine Cordaro’s last will and testament (Am. Comp. fn. 3, Doc. 4 at 4).
The complaint alleges Howell was “entitled to 5% of the value of Charlmaine’s estate upon her death” (Am. Comp. fn. 3). This audit has not independently verified the 5% figure. Under Pennsylvania law, personal representative compensation is not fixed by statute. 20 Pa.C.S. § 3537 provides that the Orphans’ Court shall allow “such compensation to the personal representative as shall in the circumstances be reasonable and just.” Whether the will itself specified 5% or whether that percentage reflects a fee arrangement between Howell and Charlmaine is not determinable from the available record.
What is independently documented: the contract between Charlmaine (through Rosina’s POA) and Butterfli Holdings 039, LLC for the sale of the restaurant property at 186 Grandview Avenue was for $570,000. Joseph Cordaro’s deed and codicil, the documents at the center of the criminal charge, expressly terminated that contract. The Affidavit of Probable Cause states that the codicil provided “the agreement with AutoZone or any other be void with no extension.” If Joseph’s documents were valid, the $570,000 sale would not close.
Howell is confirmed as the attorney for Charlmaine’s estate. The Wayne County Legal Journal estate notice (5/23/2025) lists “Rosina Cordaro, Executrix” and “Law Offices of Alfred J. Howell, Attorney for the Estate.” Whatever his compensation arrangement, Howell’s fees as estate attorney are calculated against the value of the estate he administers. A $570,000 cash sale produces a different fee than an operating restaurant retained by a family member.
Why it matters
Pa.R.P.C. 1.7(a)(2) provides that a conflict of interest exists when “there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by…a personal interest of the lawyer.” Comment 27 to Rule 1.7 specifically addresses estate conflicts: “conflict questions may arise in estate planning and estate administration.” Comment 8 to Rule 1.8 addresses lawyers who serve as fiduciaries for clients, noting that such appointments “will be subject to the general conflict of interest provision in Rule 1.7 when there is a significant risk that the lawyer’s interest in obtaining the appointment will materially limit the lawyer’s independent professional judgment.”
The test under Pennsylvania law is not whether a conflict actually affected the lawyer’s judgment, but whether the possibility of a conflict existed. In Re: Estate of Beener, 59 Som. L.J. 66 (2000) (“The test of whether an attorney has conflicting interests so as to preclude his representation of a party is not actuality of a conflict, but possibility that a conflict may arise.”).
Fred Howell’s personal financial interest in the AutoZone sale closing ran in the same direction as Rosina’s interest in voiding Joseph’s documents. The criminal prosecution voided those documents. The AutoZone sale closed. The restaurant was demolished. Howell now administers the estate. The 5% figure cited in the complaint has not been independently verified, but the structural conflict does not depend on a specific percentage. Any fee arrangement tied to estate value gave Howell a personal financial interest that aligned with the outcome the criminal prosecution produced.
No disclosure of this interest appears in the available record.
FINDING 22: The victim impact statement was written by Rosina, not the named victim
What the record shows
The victim impact statement filed with the court was written by Rosina Cordaro, not by Charlmaine Cordaro. The header reads “Defendant: Joseph Cordaro / Your Name: Charlmaine Cordaro / P.O.A. By Rosina Cordaro.” The financial impact worksheet is similarly headed: “Charlmaine Cordaro by Rosina Cordaro (P.O.A).” The insurance information form is signed “Charlmaine Cordaro signed by Rosina Cordaro Power of Attorney” and dated November 4, 2024.
The statement’s content is not that of a victim describing harm. Rosina writes that Joseph “has shown himself to be a man of deeply questionable morals,” accuses him of “calculated manipulation,” states he is “capable of even more harmful actions, possibly even physical,” requests incarceration, mandatory mental health evaluation, strict supervision, and maximum financial penalties. She asks for a Protection From Abuse order. A handwritten addendum requests “all attorney fees for civil and guardianship” — the same demand that appeared in the DA’s restitution recommendation the next day.
Why it matters
The named victim, Charlmaine Cordaro, was 87 years old and living in a care facility. The prosecution’s own theory was that she lacked capacity to make decisions. Yet Rosina exercised the same POA the prosecution obtained a conviction to void — to write a victim impact statement demanding the defendant’s incarceration and the payment of Fred Howell’s legal bills.
The financial impact worksheet is blank. No medical expenses, no counseling costs, no property loss, no funeral expenses. The only financial demand came through Rosina’s handwritten addendum requesting attorney fees. Those fees became the $19,911.17 restitution demand, half of which Edwards imposed. The victim impact statement functioned as a second channel for Fred Howell’s billing demand, written by his client, filed under the victim’s name.
FINDING 23: Pre-Sentence Investigation prepared by the Ellen Memorial nursing director’s son
What the record shows
The Pre-Sentence Investigation for Joseph Cordaro was prepared by Ryan Altemier of Wayne County Adult Probation. The Guideline Sentence Form was also “Printed on 10/29/2024 by Ryan Altemier.”
Ryan Altemier’s mother is Tammy Altemier, confirmed through the Robert L. Olver Obituary (Tri-County Independent, February 2, 2016). The obituary lists surviving children including “Tammy Altemier and her husband Chris of Honesdale” and grandchildren including “Ryan Altemier.”
Tammy Altemier was Director of Nursing/Director of Services at Ellen Memorial Healthcare Center until her retirement in August 2025. She held positions at the facility for 38 years, working as an R.N., Nursing Supervisor, and Director of Nursing. Ellen Memorial’s own Facebook post celebrating her retirement states: “She hired and trained so many of our great nurses that are still here today.” Ellen Memorial is the facility where Charlmaine Cordaro was a patient, where the documents underlying the criminal charge were allegedly executed during Joseph Cordaro’s visits on April 19 and 21, 2024, and where a supervisor allegedly shredded documents during Cordaro’s first visit (Am. Comp. ¶¶23–25, Doc. 4 at 11–12).
As Director of Nursing, Tammy Altemier sat at the top of the nursing chain of command at Ellen Memorial during every event relevant to this case. The nurses and clinical staff at the facility didn’t just report to her. She hired them. She trained them. This matters because the prosecution’s evidentiary foundation relied on statements from those employees. The Affidavit of Probable Cause cites “the observations of Rosina Cordaro and the observations of many other people in the community and staff at Ellen Memorial” as the basis for believing Charlmaine lacked capacity. The First Amended Complaint states that after Joseph’s arrest, “the Ellen Memorial staff told Defendant Hower they ‘had concerns’ about Charlmaine’s cognitive ability.” Those staff members were Tammy Altemier’s subordinates.
The complaint also describes a “supervisor” at Ellen Memorial who refused to return Joseph’s notarized documents and ordered them shredded (Am. Comp. ¶24, Doc. 4 at 11). The identity of that supervisor is not stated. As Director of Nursing/Services, Tammy Altemier outranked most supervisory staff at the facility. Whether she was the supervisor who ordered the shredding, directed that supervisor, or had no involvement is unknown from the available record.
Ryan Altemier’s wife, Mandy Altemier, is Adult and Children’s BCM (Blended Case Management) Supervisor at Wayne County, inside the same county human services apparatus that processes referrals about elderly persons’ cognitive capacity. The Mandy Altemier connection is examined further in Finding 28.
Why it matters
The PSI recommended the $19,911.17 restitution figure and contained a sentencing recommendation of $500 fine, 12 months probation, restitution at $250/month, drug testing, community service, and supervision fees. Edwards relied on this document at sentencing.
The prosecution built its case in part on statements from Ellen Memorial staff. Those staff members didn’t just report to Tammy Altemier. Per the facility’s own tribute, she hired and trained them. Tammy Altemier’s son then prepared the document that recommended Joseph Cordaro’s sentence. The relationship is not disclosed in the PSI. A reviewer examining the document for potential bias would have no basis to identify the familial connection between the probation officer who wrote the sentencing recommendation and the nursing director who personally hired and trained the staff whose observations supported the prosecution.
Whether Ryan Altemier had any contact with his mother about the case, whether his mother directed or influenced the staff statements to Hower, or whether she had any role in the shredding of Joseph Cordaro’s notarized documents is not established in the record.
FINDING 24: Woodrow Martin’s undisclosed conflict representing Cordaro
What the record shows
Woodrow Martin entered his appearance for Joseph Cordaro on July 24, 2025 (Docket p.12). His PA Supreme Court registration number is 333406.
Woodrow Martin is the brother of Mary Martin Moran. Her Facebook profile, listed under “Mary Moran (Martin),” identifies Woodrow Martin as her brother. She lists her hometown as Honesdale, Pennsylvania. Woodrow Martin’s Facebook profile lists Mary Martin Moran as his sister, states he lives in Honesdale, PA, and is from East Honesdale, Pennsylvania.
Mary Martin Moran is a named partner at Howell Moran PLLC, Fred Howell’s current law firm. She billed $225/hour on the civil case and guardianship proceedings that generated the restitution the DA demanded from Cordaro. Her hours are included in the $19,911.17 restitution figure. She and Fred Howell represent Rosina Cordaro in the estate of Charlmaine Cordaro.
John J. Martin II is an Assistant Public Defender in the Wayne County Public Defender’s Office at 925 Court Street, Honesdale — the same courthouse where the Cordaro case was prosecuted. He practices at the Law Office of John Martin at 1022 Court Street, alongside John J. Martin, the current president of the Wayne County Bar Association. The firm describes itself as a “family-owned law firm with over 60 years of experience.” All four Martins — John, Martin II, Mary, and Woodrow — share the surname and practice law in Honesdale. The exact familial relationships among the John Martin firm attorneys and the Mary-Woodrow sibling pair have not been independently confirmed beyond the Facebook-documented brother-sister link between Mary and Woodrow.
The docket does not reflect any disclosure of these relationships.
Why it matters
Pa.R.P.C. 1.7 requires disclosure where a lawyer’s representation may be materially limited by responsibilities to a third person. Martin’s sister’s firm generated the legal bills that were converted into criminal restitution. His sister personally billed 68.7 hours on the cases that produced those bills (see Finding 10). His sister continues to represent the opposing party (Rosina Cordaro) in estate matters with Fred Howell. The interests of Cordaro and Martin’s sister are directly adverse. His relative, Martin II, is an Assistant Public Defender in the same courthouse.
Whether Martin disclosed any of these relationships to Cordaro is not in the available record. What is in the record is what happened after Edwards denied the motion: nothing. The docket reflects no motion for reconsideration, no request for a hearing, no appeal. Woodrow Martin filed a single motion, received a four-day denial with no hearing, and did not pursue it further. Cordaro served the remaining five months of probation on a charge the DA’s own office had nolle prossed.
The conflict runs through the restitution. Restitution was a condition of Cordaro’s probation. That restitution — $9,955.50, approximately half the $19,911.17 demand — covered legal bills generated overwhelmingly by Mary Martin Moran at $225/hour (see Finding 10). She is a named partner at Howell Moran PLLC, Fred Howell’s firm. She billed 68.7 of the 80.7 total hours. Woodrow Martin represented the man who was court-ordered to pay his own sister’s billable hours, on a motion to end the probation under which those payments were being collected. When the motion was denied, the attorney whose sister’s firm was receiving the payments did not fight back. Whether that was a coincidence or a consequence of the conflict is exactly the question Pa.R.P.C. 1.7 exists to prevent from arising.
FINDING 25: Drug testing, warrantless searches, and supervision fees on a property-dispute misdemeanor
What the record shows
Joseph Cordaro had zero prior criminal history. The PSI records: 0 juvenile adjudications, 0 adult arrests, 0 adult convictions. The charge was a single M2, Securing Execution of Documents by Deception (18 Pa.C.S. § 4114), a non-violent document offense arising from a family estate dispute.
The sentence included: random drug testing through the SOS program, warrantless personal and property searches under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9912, a $50/month supervision fee, and a $175 booking center fee (Docket pp.2–3; Docket pp.15–16).
The financial summary shows $18 assessed for drug testing but $63 paid, with a $45 adjustment (Docket p.15). Cordaro was drug-tested multiple times. Total copies fees across five line items came to $336.48 (Docket pp.15–16). The total financial extraction was $12,024.73 (Docket p.15).
Why it matters
Drug testing is generally imposed where the offense involves controlled substances or where the defendant has a substance abuse history. Neither applies here. The PSI reports no substance abuse history.
Warrantless search conditions and $600 in supervision fees on a first-time offender convicted of Securing Execution of Documents by Deception (M2), a non-violent misdemeanor arising from a family estate dispute, is disproportionate. Ryan Altemier’s department collects that fee.
FINDING 26: PSI noted pending detainers at sentencing from the wiretapping charges
What the record shows
The PSI cover page contains the field “Detainers/Charges Pending: Yes.” The PSI’s detailed offense section identifies these as 19 wiretapping counts filed October 9, 2024.
Judge Edwards reviewed this PSI before imposing sentence on November 7, 2024. She was aware, at the time of sentencing, that the DA’s office was holding 19 additional felony charges over the defendant.
Why it matters
A sentencing judge who knows the defendant faces additional pending charges from the same DA’s office is sentencing a defendant under a specific kind of pressure. If the defendant challenges the sentence, objects to restitution, or otherwise resists the imposed conditions, the 19 pending counts remain available as a threat.
The First Amended Complaint alleges these wiretapping counts were fabricated to coerce the plea (Am. Comp. ¶36, Doc. 4 at 16). Whether fabricated or legitimate, their presence in the PSI and their visibility to the sentencing judge affected the conditions under which the sentence was imposed.
FINDING 27: The DA’s office scrambled for transcripts after the federal suit was filed
What the record shows
On April 21, 2026, Joseph Cordaro filed a federal civil rights complaint in the Middle District of Pennsylvania: Cordaro v. Howell et al., Case 3:26-cv-01041-JKM.
Two days later, on April 23, 2026, the Wayne County District Attorney’s Office filed a request for transcripts on the criminal docket (Docket p.13). On April 29, 2026, the plea hearing transcript (10/16/2024) and sentencing hearing transcript (11/07/2024) were produced (Docket p.13).
These transcripts had not been requested by the DA’s office for eighteen months following the sentencing.
Why it matters
The DA’s office did not seek these transcripts during the normal course of the case, during the nolle prosequi, or during the early termination proceedings. It sought them two days after being named in a federal civil rights lawsuit. The timing indicates the transcripts were requested for litigation defense, not case administration.
FINDING 28: Open question: Did the probation officer’s wife’s office touch the guardianship petition whose costs were billed as restitution?
What the record shows
The guardianship petition (File #24-231) was filed by Fred Howell and Mary Martin Moran on behalf of Rosina Cordaro. It generated $9,323.42 in legal bills, included in the $19,911.17 restitution demand against Joseph Cordaro (see Finding 15).
Mandy Altemier’s BCM office sits inside the county human services apparatus that processes referrals about elderly persons’ cognitive capacity. Under Pennsylvania’s guardianship statute, courts can direct county agencies to evaluate an alleged incapacitated person’s condition. In a county the size of Wayne, the office responsible for adult behavioral health case management is Mandy Altemier’s office.
What the record does not show
The guardianship docket (#24-231) is not in the audit record. It is unknown whether the guardianship court requested a county evaluation of Charlmaine’s capacity, whether BCM provided any assessment or referral, whether Mandy Altemier’s office was copied on guardianship filings or consulted by any party, or whether any of the 5.4 hours of “witness interviews” billed by Fred Howell’s firm were conducted with county service providers under Mandy’s supervision.
Why it matters
If Mandy Altemier’s office touched the guardianship case in any capacity, the chain is this: the probation officer’s wife’s office was involved in a legal proceeding whose costs were billed as criminal restitution in a case where the probation officer wrote the PSI recommending that restitution. The guardianship docket would answer the question. It is on the “Documents Still Needed” list below.
DOCUMENTS NOT YET IN RECORD
The audit findings above rely on the documents currently available. The following materials, if obtained, would inform the audit further:
Now in court record (not yet obtained):
- Plea hearing transcript (10/16/2024), produced 04/29/2026
- Sentencing hearing transcript (11/07/2024), produced 04/29/2026
Still needed:
- Civil case docket: Rosina v. Joseph Cordaro (filed 04/24/2024, Wayne County Court of Common Pleas)
- Guardianship petition docket (file #24-231)
- Enforcement action docket (Joseph Cordaro v. Rosina, post-settlement)
- Wiretapping case docket (filed 10/09/2024 per PSI p.3, 19 counts)
- Nolle prosequi motion (full text, 04/01/2025)
- Early termination motion filed by Woodrow Martin (07/24/2025) and any DA opposition
- Early termination denial order by Edwards (07/28/2025, full text)
- Edwards’ sentencing order (11/07/2024, full text)
- Written plea colloquy (10/17/2024)
- Motions hearing materials (12/04/2024, purpose unknown from docket)
- PA Disciplinary Board records for Alfred J. Howell Sr.
- PA Disciplinary Board records for A.G. Howell
- PA Disciplinary Board records for Woodrow Augustus Martin (Supreme Court No. 333406)
- Wayne County Recorder of Deeds: Joseph Cordaro’s deed (recorded 04/22/2024, Book 6454 p.426)
- Ellen Memorial incident reports filed with PA Dept. of Health (April 2024)
- Dr. Paula Bennett’s March 20, 2024 letter (full text)
- Charlmaine Cordaro’s estate filings (Wayne County Orphans’ Court)
- WNEP, River Reporter, and Local 21/Fox 56 articles on Cordaro charges (full text)
- AutoZone Sale Agreement extension allegedly signed by Charlmaine in her own capacity, January 2024
- PA Department of State notary commission records for Alfred J. Howell Sr. (to confirm commission history; relevant to Finding 17)
- Wayne County Recorder of Deeds: Loan Quach deed (recorded 10/24/2016, Instrument 201600006800, Volume 5081 Page 267; relevant to Finding 18)
- HIPAA release or authorization from Charlmaine Cordaro to Dr. Paula Bennett permitting disclosure to Fred Howell (if any exists; relevant to Finding 16)
- Evidence log or chain of custody for Joseph Cordaro’s confiscated cell phone (relevant to Finding 7)
- Any Brady disclosure by the DA’s office to defense counsel regarding contents of confiscated phone, including the April 2024 video of Charlmaine (relevant to Finding 7)
- Search warrant or consent-to-search documentation for phone examination (relevant to Finding 7)
This audit reports findings from the record. It does not assert conclusions about intent, motive, or ultimate legal violation. The findings identify departures from applicable rules and standards as documented in the available materials. The allegations described in the federal complaint are the plaintiff’s claims. The defendants have not yet filed responsive pleadings. Adjudication of those findings is a matter for appropriate judicial, disciplinary, and oversight bodies.
Cordaro v. Howell et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-01041-JKM (M.D. Pa.), is pending before Judge James Knoll Morrison. The criminal docket is Commonwealth v. Cordaro, CP-64-CR-0000272-2024, Court of Common Pleas of Wayne County, 22nd Judicial District.