William John Stonebraker, 56, and Marie Louis Stonebraker, 44, appeared alongside their respective defense attorneys Thomas Dickey and Julia Burke for a hearing on several outstanding motions, including motions to dismiss.

The couple each have two cases against them and are facing hundreds of felony charges, including involuntary deviate sexual intercourse with a child, corruption of minors, endangering the welfare of children and aggravated indecent assault. They have remained free on bail while their charges have been pending.

In arguing for the cases against William Stonebraker to be dismissed, Dickey told presiding President Judge Wade A. Kagarise that one of the case’s victims had indicated to both the defense and prosecution that the incidents outlined in the affidavits of probable cause “didn’t happen.” He said the victim recanted to her own lawyer.

When Kagarise asked Dickey for any legal precedent on dismissing cases like William Stonebraker’s, Dickey cited “overall fairness and due process.”

Marie Louis Stonebraker

Burke, who took over Marie Stonebraker’s cases from defense attorney Philip Robertson in February, said she did not receive the case files from Robertson in time for the day’s proceedings and its details “are very new to me.”

“My motion to dismiss would just mirror Attorney Dickey’s,” Burke said.

Assistant District Attorney Nicholas Mays told Kagarise that the motions “should be denied outright.”

“Cases are tried every day in which the victims are uncooperative,” Mays said.

Mays said the prosecution planned on presenting expert testimony at trial regarding inconsistent behavior and recantations by victims. He told Kagarise they also planned to present evidence of victim intimidation and obstruction, giving the example of Marie Stonebraker allegedly violating a Protection from Abuse order by posting a YouTube video shaming and insulting the victim.

Mays said the Stonebrakers’ actions explained the victim’s subsequent behavior.

Kagarise ultimately denied the Stonebrakers’ motions to dismiss without comment. He then heard evidence regarding the couples’ tender years hearsay motions, in which they requested statements made by one of the victims to the Blair County Children’s Advocacy Center be excluded.

During the hearing, Mays called on CAC expert forensic interviewer Jacqueline Condron to testify.

Condron confirmed she conducted two interviews with the victim, the second of which took place on Dec. 1, 2022. Mays played clips of the interview to the courtroom.

In the video, the victim could be heard detailing several incidents of sexual abuse by the Stonebrakers.

She said in one incident, she was eight years old and showering with William Stonebraker when he touched her inappropriately. In another, when she was 10 years old, the victim said William Stonebraker made her touch his genitals.

“It was nasty,” the victim said. “It makes me ashamed of who I am.”

The victim detailed similar incidents in which Marie Stonebraker touched her inappropriately and was made to touch Marie Stonebraker’s genitals.

When Mays asked if the video clips were a fair and accurate depiction of the interview, Condron said yes. She also stated that the victim was 14 years old at the time the interview took place.

On cross examination, Dickey questioned Condron on why it would be important for a child to be free from influences and if the victim had been influenced before an interview, to which Condron said “I don’t know what influences occurred before she was in that (interview) room.”

Condron then confirmed that she didn’t know who all had spoken to the victim before her interview.

In her questioning, Burke asked Condron if she was aware of allegations made by another victim, to which Condron said yes.

Burke also asked if Condron was aware of any psychiatric issues in regards to the victim.

“I don’t recall that for this case,” Condron said.

When Burke asked about the allegations made by the victim in the first interview, Condron said they were “similar” to the ones made in the December 2022 interview in that the victim “disclosed information about William Stonebraker.” Condron couldn’t recall if the victim made allegations against Marie Stonebraker in the first interview.

Following Condron’s testimony, Dickey asked for the record to be left open so the defense could call on the victim to testify.

Mays objected to the request, arguing that the basis for a tender years hearsay motion was to establish the reliability of the victim’s interview, not to challenge the victim’s credibility.

Burke then argued that wasn’t the case, saying it was the “content of the statements that matter.”

Kagarise told the attorneys that he would take the matter under advisement and issue an order at a later date.

The four cases against the Stonebrakers were consolidated in July 2025 by Senior Judge Richard Lewis of Dauphin County for the purpose of trial.

The Stonebrakers are both scheduled for jury selection in front of Kagarise on Aug. 3, with a subsequent five-day trial to begin on Aug. 10.

Mirror Staff Writer Rachel Foor-Musselman is at 814-946-7458.