Patrick J. Collins

Acquitted on Every Count

After about nine hours of deliberation across two days, a Delaware jury found Roman Shankaras not guilty of murder, assault, kidnapping, riot, and conspiracy arising from the 2017 uprising at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center. Shankaras, who had faced a mandatory life sentence, was released after the verdict.

The prosecution relied on accomplice liability. It argued that a person who agreed to take part in the uprising could be responsible for the charged conduct as a foreseeable result of the common undertaking, without proof that Shankaras personally carried it out.

Prosecutors acknowledged that no evidence directly connected Shankaras to the charged killing, that no testimony placed a weapon in his hands, and that no DNA evidence tied him to the attacks. The State pointed instead to prison letters and asked the jury to infer that Shankaras had helped plan the uprising.

The State also relied on Royal Downs, a cooperating witness who described Shankaras as the "puppet master" of the uprising. Collins traced the witness's dealings with investigators, his plea agreement, his possession of the letters, the timing, the motive, and the legal advantage he stood to gain — Downs, though a central figure in the event, had been permitted to plead to a single count of riot carrying no mandatory prison time in exchange for his testimony. Collins told the jury plainly that their common sense should tell them the witness was not being truthful. He argued that the scale of the overall event could not substitute for proof that Shankaras joined the criminal plan alleged by the State.

The jury evaluated the accomplice-liability theory and the cooperating witness's credibility, then acquitted Shankaras on every count. As Collins framed it afterward, the case came down to a showdown of credibility — and the jury believed his client. Shankaras became the fourth inmate fully acquitted in the Vaughn trials; earlier trials had produced only one murder conviction among seven defendants, and within weeks of the verdict the State dropped the remaining Vaughn prosecutions altogether.

The Burden in Five Words

In his opening statement, Collins reduced the burden of proof to a sentence jurors could carry into the deliberation room: "Probably guilty equals not guilty." He reminded jurors that their oath required a verdict based on the evidence and the law, with the State carrying proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Jurors could draw rational inferences, as the prosecutor urged, but each inference still had to rest on reliable evidence. The cooperating witness, the disputed letters, and the accomplice-liability theory had to prove Shankaras's guilt on their own weight — without borrowing any from the gravity or public importance of the prosecution. Five words did what pages of instruction sometimes cannot: they gave twelve people a working test.

Suspicion Specific to the Passenger

In State v. Rhoades, Collins challenged a frisk conducted during a traffic stop by members of the Governor's Task Force. Famous Rhoades was a passenger; the outstanding capiases and paraphernalia that concerned officers related to another occupant, and a billy club recovered elsewhere in the vehicle was not tied to Rhoades.

The Superior Court treated the vehicle stop and the pat-down as separate seizures. Detaining the car did not automatically authorize a frisk of each occupant. Officers needed articulable facts supporting a reasonable belief that Rhoades himself was armed and dangerous — facts "specific to the person frisked."

The court granted Collins's motion and suppressed the evidence. Rhoades had not fled or threatened anyone, the record contained no photograph of the billy club, no weapons charge followed, and the State presented no evidence connecting him to the object found elsewhere in the vehicle. The ruling reaffirmed a principle easy to state and vital to enforce: suspicion attaches to persons, not to proximity.

Vehicle and Apartment Evidence Suppressed

State v. Niyala required Collins to test the stop of Dilip Niyala's vehicle, the detention that followed, and warrantless searches of the vehicle and two apartments. Collins challenged the stop, the arrest authority, the claimed consent, and the evidence obtained from each search — every link in the chain, in order.

The Superior Court found that the State had not proven a valid traffic stop. It presented no testimony from the officers who made the stop, and the detective who said he saw a violation had separated himself from it. Any traffic purpose also could not explain the extended detention that followed.

The confidential informant's tip lacked sufficient detail to establish reasonable suspicion for the seizure or probable cause for a warrantless arrest. The court held that Niyala's later consent followed the unlawful stop and detention without enough separation to purge the taint, and it suppressed the vehicle and apartment evidence as fruit of the poisonous tree.

Reargument Left the Ruling Intact

The State sought reargument. It contended that one officer could relay a traffic observation to another, asked the court to revisit Delaware's statutory arrest authority, and again asserted reasonable suspicion independent of the traffic stop. Collins opposed the motion and maintained that the ruling had applied the record and the governing law correctly.

The court denied the motion, finding that the State had repeated positions already considered and identified no controlling law or material fact the court had overlooked. The absence of testimony from the stopping officers remained consequential, as did the absence of new facts after the vehicle stopped that could support a longer detention.

The traffic observation, the detention, the informant's information, the arrest, the consent, and the resulting searches presented separate legal questions, and Collins had made the court answer each one. Because the State failed to justify the stop and the ensuing detention, the later consent did not remove the taint from the vehicle and apartment searches. The suppression held — first time and second.

Protecting the Defense File

In State v. Robinson, state officials searched a defendant's prison cell without a warrant or prior judicial approval and seized legal papers before a first-degree murder trial. Trial counsel brought the intrusion to the court's attention, and the Superior Court appointed Collins to litigate its constitutional consequences — a measure of the court's confidence in his constitutional practice.

The court reviewed the seized material in camera and heard testimony about who ordered and participated in the search. Investigators and staff encountered attorney-client communications and defense-strategy notes without an effective taint team. Officials retained the legal materials until four days before the scheduled trial even after finding no proof that Robinson or his counsel had violated the protective order, and a paralegal assigned to the homicide unit reviewed privileged material while working on final trial preparation.

The Superior Court found a Sixth Amendment violation and actual prejudice. Collins showed the practical harm: the State had learned defense strategy shortly before trial and had failed to isolate the prosecution team from what its investigators and staff discovered.

The Finding on Appeal

On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court left intact both the Sixth Amendment violation and the Superior Court's finding of actual prejudice.

The court imposed broad relief. It disqualified the identified officials and everyone else exposed to the privileged material from Robinson's trial, ordered the State to destroy all trial work product developed in the case, and required a new team to proceed without the advantage created by the intrusion.

Delaware Trial and Appellate Practice

Collins is managing partner of Collins Price Warner Woloshin. His Delaware defense practice extends from traffic and DUI matters through misdemeanors, felonies, homicide trials, juvenile cases, pardons, expungements, and appeals.

He earned a bachelor's degree from Cornell University, an M.B.A., and a J.D. cum laude from Widener University School of Law. Across the reported decisions, his arguments hold to the same discipline: the proof required against the individual defendant, the lawful scope of a search or detention, and the integrity of the defense process.

Collins won a complete acquittal in the Vaughn prosecution and secured orders suppressing unlawfully obtained evidence and denying the State's request for reargument. In Robinson, the Delaware Supreme Court left the Sixth Amendment violation and actual-prejudice finding intact, disqualified officials exposed to privileged material, ordered tainted work product destroyed, and required a new prosecution team without access to the defense file.