On May 14,2014 the commonwealth of Pennsylvania found and convicted Joshua Carlos Ovalles of attempted homicide of the first degree,terroristic threats,two counts of aggravated assault,an firearms carried without a license. The jury that was provided for this case was not a jury of his peers he was wrongfully convicted of these chargers. There are many different reasons why this case should be retried and seen for what was not provided by the district attorneys and the commonwealth of Pennsylvania. -No proof beyond a reasonable doubt -Pre judge mental jurors -No ballistics -No fingerprints -Lack of police work -Testimony of victim not credible The commonwealth of Pennsylvania could not provide any ballistics evidence. The victim in this case Micheal Kubiak states that the defendant Joshua Carlos Ovalles received a phone call on January 9,2013 around 9:00pm from a Micheal Kubiak (570-328-7833) to purchase one bag of heroin when at trial he stated he has a five to ten bag a day habit . Kubiak stated he called someone he knew as Albee at the number (646-373-2891) which he states was a thin black male. Also he stated that he has more then one drug dealer four to be exact. When asked at trial if he had any narcotics in his system he replied yes, he would come up positive for suboxins a substitute for heroin. When asked the day the crime took place if he was on any narcotics he stated he was not. Yet when the hospital records came back the victim Micheal Kubiak who stated under oath that he was not on any narcotics came back positive for alcohol abuse an drug abuse (heroin opiates). Which now shows he was not in his right state of mind. Kubiak states Albee came out of a residence on a block he was unsure of, Kubiak was in a silver colored Volkswagen Jetta with another unidentified passenger who he picked up with Albee on s.Hancock st in Wilkes Barre Pennsylvania. Kubiak stated he received a text message from a friend asking if he wanted to hangout. Kubiak states he grew impatient and asked the unidentified black male in his backseat what was taking Albee so long the unknown passenger replies I don't know. Kubiak then stated he drove around the block two times, the second time he seen Joshua Carlos Ovalles who he pertains to as Albee walking out of the residence. Kubiak states the defendant Joshua gets into his vehicle an asks the unknown passenger in the backseat "why you let him do that" the unknown passenger replies "he was beastin" in the words of the victim Micheal Kubiak. The defendant asks the victim "you a snitch you trying to find out where I stay" the. Then Kubiak states Joshua Carlos Ovalles pulls out a .25 caliber handgun and shoots him threw times on his leg,chest,an face. Now when Albee stepped into the vehicle the victim states that Albee lowers the window an shoots three or four shots which he states one shot was directed at a house. Kubiak never called 911, he just drove himself to the hospital. Now upon inspection of the vehicle detective Bitzer stated he had to contact trooper Joseph Plant to do forensics vehicle. When Joseph Plant did DNA and ballistics tests on the vehicle he never checked the door handle in or on the putter handle of the vehicle. He never checked the window switch nor did he check the vehicle for gun powder residue to indicate where the gunshots came from. There could be a possibility that the backseat passenger shot Kubiak . Detective Bitzer stated that Kubiaks clothes were saturated in blood but when asked by defense if any blood samples were found in the vehicle Trooper Plant stated he did not find any blood. Which now shows how poor of a job was done an raises the question if Micheal Kuniak was even shot inside of his vehicle. The defense asked Kubiak did he know his phone number at the time he stated he thought it was (570-793-9797) Kubiak stated on stand he texted his friend to hangout. When phone records came back there was not any text to or from anyone around the time this incident occurred. Joshua Carlos Ovalles has never been convicted of any violent offenses. How can his picture come up in a random photo array for a attempted homicide case an a description of a think black male if the Wilkes Barre city police department has him down as a Hispanic. His present state is not consistent with the description given by the victim and the Wilkes Barre city police department. Not once did the phone records or detective Bitzer state who the phone number (646-373-2891) belongs to. The victim never provided police with any phone number for the friend he had texted. His friend never spoke to police after hearing Kubiak was shot. There is not any proof beyond a reasonable doubt showing Joshua Carlos Ovalles committed this crime. No one knows If the unknown passenger shot Kubiak or if this mysterious friend of the victim shot Kubiak. An apparently doing a proper investigation was not important but choosing a person and taking them away from their life is. The commonwealth of Pennsylvania can not convict someone off a hearsay evidence. Upon all errors in this case, the jury that was on this case read articles on other cases pertaining to Joshua Carlos Ovalles vs Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Case law Ronald Mendez vs Washington state (jury reads articles). More then several jurors on this case read articles on Joshua Carlos Ovalles in the newspaper. Commonwealth vs William Albert Brado fits perfect on this equation. The article that was in the newspaper the day before trial changes the jurors state of mind and gave them a bias feel towards the case. Even with the jurors being asked all questions they still went against the terms and conditions of the trial. The jurors were prejudice an bias against the defendant I'm this case because he is described as a black male from out of state who allegedly shot a white male during a drug deal. The deliberation in this case took less then two hours. The jury found the defendant guilty of firearms carried without a license but the district attorneys did not provide any weapon on this case. Joshua Carlos Ovalles was convicted of four other charges with no proof beyond a reasonable doubt, just hearsay. This was not a fair trial to the defendant. No DNA,No ballistics,No weapon, just hearsay. Hearsay of a heroin addict who lied on stand an stated he was not under the influence the day of the crime but when medical records showed that he was under the influence. There is a tremendous amount of insufficient evidence in this case. Joshua Carlos Ovalles is a young man who got convicted of a crime he is innocent of, he also is a father to a fifth teen month old boy. His son is missing out on his fathers teachings an the defendant is missing out on his sons beautiful life all for an act he did not commit.