Who Decides You Get Charged With a Crime in Pennsylvania? Not Who You Think.

HONESDALE, WAYNE COUNTY — Korin Carl spent three days as an accused neo-Nazi.

The 21-year-old Hawley woman was arrested Dec. 13 on felony ethnic intimidation charges for an antisemitic email she never sent. Her mugshot ran on the evening news. She posted $25,000 bail.

Three days later, the man who actually sent the email confessed. Wayne County DA A.G. Howell’s office withdrew all charges.

Carl was collateral damage in a workplace grudge. But what made her arrest possible wasn’t one cop’s mistake—it’s how Pennsylvania’s criminal justice system is designed to work.

Troopers File Charges. Prosecutors Inherit Them.

Here’s what most people don’t know: in Pennsylvania, police officers file criminal charges directly with magisterial district judges. No prosecutor reviews the evidence first. No grand jury weighs in.

The investigating officer drafts the criminal complaint, signs the affidavit, and submits it to the MDJ. The judge issues a warrant or summons. The defendant gets arrested, photographed, and publicly named.

The district attorney’s office enters the picture at the preliminary hearing—after the arrest, after the mugshot, after the news coverage.

For Korin Carl, that hearing was scheduled for Dec. 17. By then, she’d already been cleared—but only because her accuser developed a conscience.

48 Hours From Accusation to Felony Charges

The timeline:

Dec. 7: Honesdale business owner reports antisemitic email, apparently from Carl, a former employee. The message contained swastikas, caricatures, and threats that “your people should be exterminated.”

Dec. 9: Trooper Robert Wareham of PSP Honesdale files criminal complaint. Five charges: ethnic intimidation (F3), terroristic threats (M1), two counts of harassment, disorderly conduct.

Dec. 13: Carl arraigned before Judge Bonnie Carney in Hawley. $25,000 bail.

Dec. 15: John Andrew Maddi, 38, of Waymart, walks into PSP Honesdale and confesses. He created a fake email account to frame Carl—his former coworker who’d complained about him before he was fired.

Dec. 16: All charges withdrawn.

Two days from accusation to felony charges. No IP trace. No motive investigation. No background check on a 21-year-old whose only prior court record was a 2022 speeding ticket in Pike County.

The email came from Maddi’s computer. Basic digital forensics would have shown that. Nobody checked.

The Law: Private Citizens Need DA Approval. Cops Don’t.

Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 506 allows private citizens to file criminal complaints—but only with district attorney approval.

Police officers face no such requirement.

According to Monroe County DA’s office guidance on private complaints: “Just as a police officer must do, you must demonstrate that ‘probable cause’ exists… In other than Summary Offenses, the Office of the District Attorney must approve every Private Criminal Complaint before a Magisterial District Judge is permitted to issue process.”

A civilian accusing you of a crime must convince a prosecutor first. A state trooper just needs to convince himself.

Why Pennsylvania Works This Way

The Fifth Amendment requires grand jury indictment for federal felonies. But in Hurtado v. California (1884), the Supreme Court ruled states aren’t bound by that requirement.

About half of states still require grand jury indictments for serious felonies. Pennsylvania is not one of them.

Instead, Pennsylvania uses preliminary hearings as the checkpoint. The DA presents evidence, the defense can cross-examine, and the MDJ decides whether there’s enough to proceed to trial.

But the preliminary hearing happens after the arrest. After the booking. After the mugshot. After the news cycle.

It’s a filter, not a gate.

The Accountability Gap

Under Brady v. Maryland (1963), prosecutors must disclose evidence that could help the defense—including credibility problems with their witnesses. This led to “Brady lists”: databases tracking officers with histories of dishonesty, excessive force, or misconduct.

Pennsylvania is not in compliance with nationwide Brady list standards.

The state created a police misconduct database under Act 57 of 2020. But:

The database isn’t public
Records only appear when an officer leaves their job—not when they’re disciplined and stay
There’s no enforcement mechanism for agencies that don’t comply
Records from before July 2021 aren’t included
Some courts have excluded entire categories of officers, including probation officers

Spotlight PA called it “riddled with loopholes.”

For defendants, this means no easy way to know whether the trooper who just filed charges has a history of sloppy work.

What “Withdrawn” Actually Means

Korin Carl’s case is closed. Docket MJ-22302-CR-0000181-2025 shows all charges withdrawn Dec. 16.

But “withdrawn” isn’t “expunged.”

Her arrest is still on record. Her mugshot is still online. News stories naming her as an accused antisemite still rank in search results.

To get the arrest expunged, she’d have to petition the court, pay filing fees, and wait. The system that wrongly charged her doesn’t automatically clean up its mess.

Wayne County

DA A.G. Howell’s office withdrew charges the morning after Maddi confessed. That’s the right call.

But what review existed before the arrest?

Howell is a third-generation Honesdale attorney. He served as an assistant DA and public defender in Wayne County before being elected in 2019. His office works closely with PSP Honesdale on most criminal cases in the county.

The Question

Korin Carl was exonerated because John Maddi felt guilty.

“Even though I don’t care for her, I can’t let her go through this,” Maddi told WNEP.

If he hadn’t confessed, she’d still be facing trial. The system had no mechanism to catch the mistake.

Maddi now faces 18 charges including ethnic intimidation, identity theft, and forgery. He’s free on $100,000 unsecured bail with a preliminary hearing Dec. 31.

Carl’s record shows an arrest for crimes she didn’t commit.

The system worked exactly as designed. That’s the problem.

Case Reference

Commonwealth v. John Andrew Maddi

Docket: MJ-22302-CR-0000184-2025
Preliminary Hearing: Dec. 31, 2025, Wayne County Central Court
Charges: Ethnic intimidation (F3), criminal use of communication facility (F3), identity theft (M1), forgery (M1), terroristic threats (M1), harassment (4 counts), disorderly conduct (2 counts)

Commonwealth v. Korin Avery Carl

Docket: MJ-22302-CR-0000181-2025
Status: All charges withdrawn Dec. 16, 2025

Maddi is presumed innocent until proven guilty.