Ferrante appealing conviction in cyanide case
The former University of Pittsburgh neuroresearcher convicted of first-degree murder for killing his wife with cyanide believes he deserves a new trial.
In a 45-page brief filed with the Pennsylvania Superior Court, the attorney for Robert Ferrante lays out four claims that he believes entitle his client to relief: that the mostly circumstantial evidence at trial was insufficient to sustain a first-degree murder conviction; that the jury verdict was against the weight of the evidence; that the prosecution’s 89 search warrants in the case were overly broad; and that the prosecution withheld crucial evidence that called into question the credibility of the lab that produced the fatal cyanide test results.
A jury found Ferrante, 68, who is serving life without parole, guilty of killing Dr. Autumn Klein, 41. She collapsed at the couple’s Schenley Farms home late on April 17, 2013, and died three days later. Days later, Quest Diagnostics, out of Virginia, returned results from a blood test showing a lethal level of cyanide.
At trial, prosecutors presented evidence that Ferrante, who studied amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and Huntington’s disease, ordered cyanide through his Pitt research lab on April 15, 2013, and had it
shipped there overnight. Police later found that the bottle of potassium cyanide had been opened, and 8.3 grams were missing. In addition, they showed the jury dozens of Google searches from Ferrante’s laptop computer relating to cyanide and human toxicity, and how a medical examiner can find cyanide in a body.
His defense attorneys argued that there was insufficient evidence to show Klein died from cyanide poisoning, and even less evidence to show her husband gave it to her. They suggested that she died from either a heart or brain anomaly instead.
Following a 12-day trial, on Nov. 7, 2014, a jury found Ferrante guilty of first-degree murder.
Ferrante’s appeal to Superior Court was initially filed in February, but defense attorney Chris Rand Eyster submitted it under seal, blocking it from public view. The secrecy was attributed to an order previously entered to protect Quest Diagnostics’ standard operating procedures.
The Post-Gazette, on March 3, filed a motion seeking access to Ferrante’s brief based on public interest. On June 28, the Superior Court granted that motion and ordered Mr. Eyster to submit a redacted brief within 14 days.
That was filed Wednesday.
In it, Mr. Eyster argues that the Allegheny County District Attorney’s office failed to reveal potentially favorable evidence to the defense prior to trial regarding Nichols Institute, a subsidiary of Quest Diagnostics. That entity was convicted of a felony in 2009 and ordered to pay a $40 million fine for misbranding, and two years later paid $241 million to settle civil violations of the False Claims Act.
Ferrante’s attorneys did not learn about either instance until after trial.
“Here, the prosecution contended that the result of one singular test from Quest/Nichols on the decedent’s blood revealed an elevated level of cyanide — indicating poisoning,” Mr. Eyster wrote. “The cause of death determination depended on whether the Quest result was reliable.”
He continued that Quest was not an accredited forensic lab, and further that the positive cyanide test results were inconsistent with Klein’s symptoms. Mr. Eyster also wrote that Quest failed to follow appropriate scientific methods in its testing — failing to follow the company’s SOP, failing to use proper controls in conducting the tests, and failing to replicate the test when it produced a positive result.
“This powerful evidence would have altered the jury’s judgment as to the Quest results and undermined the commonwealth’s purported cause of death,” Mr. Eyster wrote. “Clearly, the integrity of the Quest laboratory was a critical issue at trial.”
Were the Superior Court to throw out the Quest results as Ferrante’s attorney suggests, Mr. Eyster argues that there would be no probable cause to even prosecute his client, “let alone prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”