Bring
kevin
home
Restoring Justice and Due Process in Kevin Morgan's Case
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Martin Luther King Jr.
Kevin Morgan was denied a fair trial: his 911 call, PTSD expert, and self-defense evidence were blocked.
He now faces 23–50 years for firing a defensive shot to protect himself and his pregnant wife, with both forensic evidence and witness testimony consistent with self-defense.
✍🏾 Add your voice: Sign the petition to demand a fair appeal for Kevin.
His Appeal is Pending
Oral Arguments in the Superior Court of PA: 10/22/2025
How You Can Help
TAKE ACTION IN 2 MINUTES1️⃣ Sign & share the petition.
2️⃣ Email Pennsylvania leaders.
3️⃣ Share this site with friends and family.
Every voice matters. Oversight exists only when people demand it
What Went Wrong
Several key details never reached the jury; some were barred under pretrial rulings, while others were downplayed during the investigation.• A documented history of violence by the decedent.• Evidence recovered from the vehicle suggested a volatile and unsafe environment, which the investigation did not explore.When the case went to trial, additional due process errors compounded the problem:• No self-defense instruction: The jury was never told they could consider Kevin’s right to defend himself under 18 Pa.C.S. § 505 (Castle Doctrine).• PTSD expert excluded: The defense expert was prepared to explain Kevin’s fear response but was not permitted to testify.• 911 call excluded: Kevin’s immediate call for help was labeled “self-serving hearsay” instead of treated as an excited utterance.• Sentencing bias: The court relied on false and unproven allegations to justify a 23–50 year sentence.• Shifting prosecution narratives: The prosecutor and key witnesses presented conflicting versions of events, leaving the jury with multiple incompatible theories.Together, these omissions and rulings resulted in an incomplete and inconsistent trial record that undermined fairness.
The loss of life in this case is tragic but tragedy does not erase the right to due process.
The Constitution guarantees fairness. Kevin was denied it.
Investigation Red Flags
Investigation Red Flags• Overcharging: Prosecutors pursued the most severe counts, framing Kevin’s actions as a cold-blooded attack• Ignored forensics: Physical evidence did not support the Commonwealth’s versions.• Outside influence: A private family attorney for K.L.S. — who was not present at the scene — contacted 911 and later requested direct communication with detectives early in the investigation. This highly unusual step blurred professional boundaries and may have influenced both the investigative direction and prosecutorial decisions.• Incomplete evidence: A partial Ring video became the case’s central narrative, even though it ended before the critical moment of threat.• Unaddressed context: Material recovered from the vehicle that could have provided context about the environment was not examined.• Unproven claims at sentencing: The Commonwealth relied on statements and false allegations to justify a decades-long sentence.• Each red flag points to a process driven by assumption, pressure, and narrative; not full evidence.
Forensic Review
FORENSIC EVIDENCE SPEAKS FOR ITSELF
An independent forensic analysis was consistent with eyewitness statements:> The decedent exited the vehicle and advanced toward Kevin
WHAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS• No soot or stippling → the shot was fired from several feet away, not at close range.• Front-to-back, downward trajectory → both men were facing one another, not a surprise attack.• Decedent fully outside the car → contradicts claims of an ambush or car-door shooting.• Height difference and movement pattern→ the angle reflects motion and reaction, not aggression or intent.• Single defensive shot → consistent with a brief, chaotic confrontation — not premeditation.WHY IT MATTERS• The Commonwealth’s theory changed three times; yet the forensic record did not substantiate any of them.• Every piece of physical evidence and every eyewitness account aligns with one conclusion: the decedent closed the distance and escalated the encounter into a physical threat.• Testimony from Kevin, his daughter, his wife, neighbors, and the decedent’s ex’s initial statement all support this same sequence of events:• Kevin, backed away and fired a single defensive shot in fear for his life.
Prosecution’s Shifting Theory
The prosecution advanced mutually exclusive theories at trial, stating Kevin:1.Baited the decedent into confrontation,2. Snapped spontaneously in anger and / or3. Acted with premeditated intent because of his clothing.
• The Commonwealth’s theories contradicted each other; and when that happens, due process breaks down.• The prosecution’s argument appeared to misstate self-defense law: arguing Kevin “provoked” the attack using words.•Although Pennsylvania courts have ruled that words alone do not justify retaliation• At the same time, the ADA’s own remarks acknowledged that the decedent posed a potential threat,
• By suggesting Kevin could have “held him at gunpoint” or “fired a warning shot.”• That admission directly undermines the claim that Kevin acted out of aggression rather than fear.• By shifting theories and misrepresenting the law, the Commonwealth stripped Kevin of a fair trial and turned his speech into their evidence.
Why This Matters:• A person cannot logically need a gunpoint warning if there is “no danger.”• That contradiction reveals the heart of the problem: Kevin’s fear was recognized, yet his right to self-defense was denied.
Presenting three conflicting theories violates due process.
It’s simple: you can’t convict someone beyond a reasonable doubt using three conflicting theories without evidence to support them.
All testimony comes from court records. Initials are used for respect
Conflicting Testimony
Keywitness #1
K.L.S., the prosecution’s main witness, gave shifting accounts that conflicted with both other testimony and the physical evidence.Her trial testimony and earlier police interview show that she stopped the vehicle at the decedent’s direction, even as tensions escalated.Despite clear signs of hostility, K.L.S. remained at the scene while the decedent exited to confront Kevin; a decision that turned a verbal dispute into a physical threatCommonwealth later acknowledged when the ADA suggested Kevin “could have fired a warning shot.”
• Initial police statement (version 1): K.L.S. told police she stopped because she thought Kevin and the decedent were going to fight.• At trial (version 2): stated she exited to put her child in a car seat, that decedent didn’t move, and everything happened within two seconds.• At trial (Version 3): stated the decedent got out to defend their family from Kevin verbal threats
Why This Matters:
When key witnesses give conflicting versions of events, justice depends on careful scrutiny, not assumption.
Ignoring those inconsistencies replaces truth with narrative and that is how fear and survival are turned into guilt.
Other Witnesses & Kevin’s Account
Kevin’s account:
• After walking P.M. to the car, Kevin suddenly saw who was in the passenger seat and reacted—shocked and upset.• He voiced that shock to the driver: “Why did you bring this motherf—— to my house?”• A heated verbal exchange followed.• While the decedent was still in the car, Kevin heard threats: “I know where you live,” “I’ll be back,” “Stop the car!”• The decedent then exited and advanced, saying “Is this what you want?” and “I’ll kill you.”• Backing away, Kevin fired a single defensive shot.P.M. (child):
• Heard “Stop the car!” and “Is this what you want?”• She believed he wanted to hurt her father.• Did not see the discharge; observed the decedent afterward clutching his chest and moving toward the car.J.M. (wife):
• Tried to de-escalate, yelling “Stop!”• She heard the decedent say “Is this what you want?” as he advanced.• She stepped between themNeighbors:
• Reported hearing raised voices and a single gunshot.
• None witnessed either man with a weapon
VIDEO ≠ FULL CONTEXT
The clip shown in court **was incomplete; **it ended before the key moments that determined how the confrontation unfolded..
What the Video Shows• Kevin walks his daughter to the car.• Kevin is standing between the back driver's door and the street•Kevin shuts the door as it drives off• The car begins to leave, then stops• Kevin stands a few feet behind the vehicle, never blocking it from leaving.• The car moves and stops several times.• Kevin begins crosses the street, remaining behind the vehicle.• He spits a toothpick toward the ground unnoticed by anyone inside.• J.M. appears on camera, moving toward Kevin.• The clip ends as the car stops; it does not show the shooting
Why this Matters• The courts described the video as “ very clear.”• But the shooting itself isn’t captured on camera.• What’s shown stops before the crucial moments; meaning the footage alone doesn’t show how the confrontation unfolded• Under due-process standards, convictions must rest on complete evidence, not inference or assumption.
Full Context
This was not a routine custody exchange.• Items recovered from the vehicle suggested an unsafe environment, not a simple family handoff.•The decedent had a documented history of violence.• Kevin had repeatedly asked K.L.S. to come alone for custody exchanges due to his safety concerns.• Kevin had recently been granted expanded custody time•The custody judge had reaffirmed that the decedent was not permitted to be alone with P.M.• The decedent (6'1", ~200 lbs) advanced on Kevin (5'8", ~150 lbs) while yelling and reaching• No gun was recovered from the decedent or the vehicle• Kevin’s perception of imminent danger was both reasonable and supported by expert testimony• Expert analysis described Kevin’s response as consistent &&with fear and survival, not premeditation.**
Kevin was judged by hindsight and morality instead of law; a standard the Constitution and Pennsylvania’s self-defense statutes never set.
Most don’t have the luxury of hindsight.
Legal Context
• No duty to retreat: A person has no obligation to run or hide while lawfully on their own property.
• Castle Doctrine: Extends protection to the home and surrounding areas, including yard, porch, and driveway.• No “equal force” rule: The law does not require a person to wait until they are attacked or to “match” the threat.• Under Pennsylvania law a person may use for if they are reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or serious injury.• Words are not provocation: Pennsylvania courts have ruled that “mere words, without more, do not constitute adequate provocation.” — Commonwealth v. Bullock, 643 A.2d 1004.• This means that verbal insults or arguments do not justify physical aggression.
• Kevin speaking or arguing did not give D.M. the right to exit the car and advance on him.Kevin was in front of his home, lawfully present, and facing an advancing aggressor.
The law protects the right to act when danger feels imminent
Timeline of events
Key MomentsJune 27, 2023 — The Incident
- During a custody pickup outside his home in Pottstown, an argument occurs.• Video footage shows part of the interaction but ends before the critical moment of threat; was described by prosecutors as very clear.• In reality, it does not show the critical moment of threat or the other people inside the car he was arguing with• Leaving jurors with the impression that Kevin was the only person speaking audibly.• A single shot is fired. Kevin immediately calls 911 and remains on scene with his hands up.June 28, 2023 — Arrest & Overcharging• Kevin is charged with 1st-degree murder, 3rd-degree murder, child endangerment, reckless endangerment, and related counts.• Bail is denied.Aug 25, 2023 — Preliminary Hearing• Case is held for trial.
• Kevin’s wife, an eyewitness, is barred from the courtroom.May 17, 2024 — Pretrial Rulings• 911 call excluded as “self-serving hearsay” (even though it qualified as an excited utterance).• PTSD expert excluded, blocking testimony on Kevin’s fear response.• Decedent’s violent history excluded, which normally comes in when self-defense is raised.> By trial, the jury was cut off from Kevin’s mental health context, his immediate call for help, and the decedent’s background.June 2024 — Trial• Jury is denied a self-defense instruction, even though Kevin testified he was backing away as decedent advanced.- Last day of trial: Judge instructs on voluntary manslaughter, but without self-defense law to guide jurors.- Verdict: Kevin is acquitted of 1st-degree murder, but convicted of 3rd-degree murderSept 26, 2024 — Sentencing• Kevin is sentenced to 23–50 years.• Judge referenced false allegations not supported by formal charges or trial evidence.Dec 2024 — Post-Sentence Motions & Appeal Filed• Challenges raised: denial of self-defense instruction, exclusion of expert testimony and 911 call, reliance on improper sentencing factors.Oct 22, 2025 — Superior Court Appeal• Oral arguments scheduled before the Pennsylvania Superior Court.
Why This Case Matters
When the Courts Ignore Trauma•Kevin’s PTSD expert was barred from testifying; a decision that mirrors a national problem.• Courts often misunderstand trauma and punish fear instead of seeing it as context.Trauma isn’t a crime; it’s context.When Self-Defense Isn’t Equal• Kevin, a lawful gun owner defending his family at home, was portrayed as the aggressor.• His case reflects how self-defense laws are applied unevenly across race and region.• Self-defense can’t depend on skin color or zip code.When Family Safety Fails• The confrontation happened during a custody pickup with no safety protocol.
• Families across America face similar risks every day because there are no consistent safe-exchange standards.Families deserve safety, not tragedy.
Bring Kevin Home · Fairness protects us all ·
Contact: [email protected]
This site summarizes publicly available court records and filings for educational and advocacy purposes. It does not offer legal advice and is maintained by independent advocates seeking transparency and fairness in Kevin Morgan’s case
This site is maintained by independent advocates seeking transparency and fairness in Kevin Morgan’s case.