A lawyer who receives a minimum threshold of qualifying responses from fellow attorneys can qualify for one of three prestigious Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings:
John C. Uhler got this award in 2026
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ZACHARY WITMAN 112 York Legal Record 163(1999); 116 York Legal Record 1(2002); 117 York Legal Record 40(2003); 117 York Legal Record 95(2003); 121 York Legal Record 67(2007), 5411CA1998 – Judge. Presided over high profile criminal homicide trial which is pending before the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on a Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) petition 797MDA2010. A new trial was granted at the trial level. The Defendant was 15 years of age at the time his 13-year-old brother was brutally killed. Reversed at appellate level. Federal Habeas Corpus Action pending.
“1969 York Race Riot Trials” 2002- 2003
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. CHARLES H. ROBERTSON et al. 116 York Legal Record 37(2002); 120 York Legal Record 66 (2006); 121 York Legal Record 14 (2007) – Judge. Homicide charges filed against nine gang members and the Mayor of the City of York arising from alleged conduct of gang members and Mayor's prior role as a police officer for the City of York in 1969. The Mayor was acquitted. The gang members were all convicted. All appeals and PCRA petitions have been denied by the Appellate Courts.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. BURLINGAME, et al. 109 York Legal Record 11(1995); 448Pa. Super 594; 672 A2d 813 (1996) – Judge. Propriety of enhanced gradation of offense arising from ethnic intimidation at work site labor picket.
ESTATE of GEORGIA L. MURRAY v. LOVE, 104 York Legal Record 68 (1992); 411 Pa. Super, 602 A2d 366 (Pa Super 1902) – Judge. Frequently cited civil opinion surrounding propriety of legal fees wherein a minor is client and or benefactor of generated funds.
UNITED STATES of AMERICA v. WILLIAM T. SMITH Jr. and ALAN R. STONEMAN 602 F Supp 388 (1984); 776 F2d 1104 (3CA1985) – Lead defense counsel for Alan Stoneman. Smith, Stoneman, and John Torquato (who became a government witness) were indicted for their efforts in bribing numerous Commonwealth officials to assure a lucrative contract with Computer Technologies Associates (CTA). The RICO trial became a highly visible criminal trial with far reaching political ramifications and public interests. Elected officials such as R. Budd Dwyer, Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania were targeted. Significant pretrial and trial issues were encountered as well as fair trial free press. The jury trial held in Williamsport, Pennsylvania consumed nearly six months.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ex rel J Shane Cramer et al., and James A McHale, Secretary of Agriculture v. US DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE et al. ;Independent Meat Packers and Processors of Pennsylvania and Peters Brothers Meat Market Incorporation, and James A McHale Secretary of Agriculture v US DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE et al 469 F2d 1387 (3 CA 1972)– Lead Defense Counsel for Secretary of Agriculture USA,Earl Butz and USDA. Preliminary Injunction proceedings with appeals to Third Circuit resulting from USDA's takeover of the Pennsylvania meat inspection program pursuant to the Wholesome Meat Act. Interstate v. intrastate issues and Commerce Clause. Evidence was similar to the reported meat packing industry abuses of Upton Sinclair fame.
“Harrisburg Seven Case” 1970-1972
UNITED STATES of AMERICA v. PHILLIP BERRIGAN et al – Senior Law Clerk. Drafted opinions on numerous pretrial motions regarding Federal Wire Tap and Federal Grand Jury issues. In Re Jogues EGAN, 71-1088, (MD Pa 1971); 450F2d 199 (3CA1971) - Assistant US Attorney. Supervised and guided the US Marshals, FBI and Federal Enclave law enforcement's response to the demonstrators at the Federal Court House and Fort Indiantown Gap.
Zoom
FaceTime
By clicking on the "Submit" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, Supplemental Terms and Privacy Policy. You also consent to be contacted at the phone number you provided, including by autodials, text messages and/or pre-recorded calls, from Martindale and its affiliates and from or on behalf of attorneys you request or contact through this site. Consent is not a condition of purchase.
You should not send any sensitive or confidential information through this site. Emails sent through this site do not create an attorney-client relationship and may not be treated as privileged or confidential. The lawyer or law firm you are contacting is not required to, and may choose not to, accept you as a client. The Internet is not necessarily secure and emails sent though this site could be intercepted or read by third parties.