The defendant was charged with two counts of failure to comply with a recognizance: (1) being away from his place of residence without his surety, and (2) possessing cellular phones and other prohibited communication devices.
The trial examined surveillance evidence from police officers and testimony from the defendant's brother.
The court found the defendant not guilty on count 1 due to ambiguity in the written recognizance regarding whether the condition was actually imposed, and guilty on count 2 based on credible police observations of the defendant in possession of a cellular telephone.
