Aid Francis: Wrongfully Accused and Struggling

To whom it may concern:

Last April 2024 I walked into the AAA Center in Falls Township, PA. I successfully renewed my vehicle registration. Two weeks later several plainly clothed men from the Falls Township Police Department accosted me in front of my apartment building en route to my vehicle. They informed me that the clerk Dominic Balisari, from the AAA Center, claimed that he saw child pornography on my cell phone when I showed him a screenshot of my car insurance. Months later I learned that the lead detective made a cursory inquiry upon receiving the report from a corporal officer then launched a rather extravagant investigation assuming he (the detective) was going to find a treasure trove of evidence on my cell phone. On May 23, 2024, the Falls Township Police Department charged me with One Count Possession of Child Pornography, and One Count of an Illegal Use of a Communication Device.

On September 4, hours prior to the preliminary hearing, the DA informed my lawyer that the alleged images the accuser claimed to have seen WAS DETERMINED NOT TO BE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. However, the detective’s testimony claims “…, that there appears to be (rather than certain of), a ten second video of an adult woman with a minor.” The DA also informed my lawyer that the detective is not an expert certified in determining the ages of people’s faces and bodies in videos and photos (Tanner Scale, James Tanner, 1969). During the detective’s testimony he stated “…, I am no expert…, the alleged ten second video depicted obscured faces and body parts of an adult female and a minor.” After the preliminary hearing the Bucks County DA offered me a plea deal, they dropped the original charge from One Count Possession of Child Pornography to One Count Illegal Use of a Communication Device (I rejected the plea deal). The warrant was based solely on an unsubstantiated witness observation; in other words, the detective took the clerk’s claim at face value (prima facie), and as I mentioned, launched a rather extensive investigation assuming he (the detective) was going to find a plethora of evidence on my cell phone. When my lawyer viewed the police body cam footage, at one point he heard detective Christopher D Iacono say to his colleagues “…, there’s a 95% chance that this guy is innocent.” This body cam footage was submitted to the court and was viewed by the judge, the DA, and the detective during deliberations.

I must admit that I was rather dumbfounded, but cooperative towards the Falls Township Police Department when they accosted me in front of my apartment building to seize my cell phone, and despite the lack of evidence on my phone after an extensive outsourced forensic investigation, it is my speculation that I was arrested unfairly. Furthermore, it is my lawyer’s conjecture that the detective purposely delayed releasing discovery (lack of evidence), knowing full well that he (the detective), had a flawed and defective case against me. During the pre-trial deliberations the detective was the only witness called to testify. My lawyer asked the detective to describe the forensic investigation process performed on my iPhone. The detective explained that there was no forensic investigation performed; in other words, there was no certified Tanner expert that determined the ages of the participants from the alleged ten second video. The forensic process was to simply extract all information from my iPhone including: media files, browser history, text messages, emails, etc. I can only assume, after hearing the detective’s testimony, that he was the only person that viewed the material from my iPhone and made an uneducated, uncertified, and unprofessional judgement to determine that an alleged ten second video was contraband after combing through all of my unwarranted and deleted spam. Perhaps the judge assigned to my trial was the only other person that viewed the alleged ten second video following the pre-trial. At this point I was still facing two felony charges. A few hours later the DA contacted my lawyer and offered a new plea deal: two misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct, 12 months probation, and no fines except for court fees of $2000. Why do you suppose the judge granted the DA’s plea bargain to a much lesser charge?

The local news paper posted my mugshot the day of my arrest. The reporter rewrote the police report verbatim claiming that the AAA employee saw several photos of female children in BDSM between the ages of 7-9. Later the employee admitted, during the preliminary hearing, that while viewing a full sized screenshot image of my vehicle insurance, that the alleged images of child pornography that he claimed to have seen, were located at the bottom of my cellphone screen in queue (the images in queue on a iPhone13 are less than a half of a square inch in size). The police report also stated that the AAA employee said he looked at my iPhone13 screen for three seconds. Detective Christopher D Iacono upon performing a cursory investigation, determined that the witness’s three second glance of tiny images, from my iPhone13, was enough information to requisition a search warrant. To reiterate: the DA informed my lawyer, prior to the preliminary hearing, that the images the AAA employee claimed to have seen WAS DETERMINED NOT TO BE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.

It is obvious to anyone that the detective fabricated the alleged evidence knowing that no other person in a certified or professional capacity would view the alleged 10 second video; this is protocol involving child pornography. I never viewed the alleged evidence, my lawyer never viewed the alleged evidence, and the DA never viewed the alleged evidence. The only other person that would be allowed to view the evidence would be judge Finley, the judge assigned to my trial. Therefore, if the detective and the judge were the only two people of a professional capacity to view the alleged evidence, then why did the judge accept the DA’s offer of reducing the felony charge to a misdemeanor despite the detective’s conclusion of finding a ten second video of child pornography? When was the last time a court lowered a felony to a misdemeanor, despite claiming to possess the evidence necessary to reach a guilty verdict of felony possession?

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Francis Xavier Danis Summary and Conclusion:

On January 29, 2025, the trial reached its final adjudication. The narrative the DA presented to the judge in their final summation was roughly “…, in April of 2024, Mr. Danis walked into the AAA Center in Langhorne PA, with the intent to renew his vehicle registration, and upon successfully doing so, engaged in disorderly conduct twice, hence the two counts of disorderly conduct.” Go figure.

There was never any mention of the original charge or accusations during the deliberations, and the accuser from the AAA Center was not required to give witness testimony on the day of my trial on January 29, 2025. The reckless and prejudice actions performed by detective Christopher D Iancono and AAA employee Dominic Balisari produced no heros, nor did they save any children from any monster however, my future is permanently tainted.

Please consider contributing to my GoFundMe fundraiser, I am a 58 year old professional pianist and music instructor. I was terminated from my employer(s) at the behest of the detective’s request during the day of my arrest (so much for innocent before proven guilty). I have been unemployed since May of last year. My rent is roughly $1000 a month, my attorney’s fee will cap at $15,000, and the liquidation of my assets are dwindling. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Francis X. Danis, M.Ed.