Massacre witness at issue in separate shooting
Attorneys representing several men accused of shooting three people at a 2015 vigil in Homewood want to question the two prosecutors on the Wilkinsburg mass shooting case to find out why they chose not to call a key jailhouse witness.
That jailhouse witness is a named defendant in the vigil shooting and also appears to be cooperating against his co-defendants.
The defense attorneys believe that if the prosecution in the Wilkinsburg case chose not to use that man, known as Witness No. 3, the reasoning for their decision could call into question his credibility and allow them to impeach him on the stand in their case.
“We believe that it is discoverable material and ought to be examined via the prosecutors as to why they chose not to call this witness,” said Patrick Nightingale, who represents Ronald Dotson in the vigil case. “This witness is the only witness who places my client at the scene with weapons.”
Nine men were charged in the Sept. 16, 2015, shooting on Monticello Street that injured two children and an adult. About 60 people were gathered there that evening to mark the two-year anniversary of the shooting death of 19-year-old Anton Smith.
As the crowd gathered, shots were fired by multiple people, police said. The city’s Shotspotter alert system recorded 21 shots fired from different locations on Monticello.
Arrest warrants were issued for two people — Demetres Beck and Gregory Parker — in January 2016 after witnesses came forward and identified them by their nicknames. Seven other defendants were also charged either
by criminal complaint or the county’s indicting grand jury in the fall of 2018.
At Thursday’s status conference in the vigil shooting, Mr. Nightingale asked Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Edward J. Borkowski to hold a pretrial hearing on the issue of Witness No. 3’s credibility. Mr. Nightingale said he and the other defense attorneys should be able to call Deputy District Attorney Kevin Chernosky and Assistant District Attorney Lisa Pellegrini to the stand to question them about their decision not to call Witness No. 3 in the potential death penalty trial for the two men who were accused of killing five people and an unborn child during a backyard cookout in Wilkinsburg on March 9, 2016.
The prosecution’s decision to not call Witness No. 3 led to Judge Borkowski throwing out the entire case against Robert Thomas the day the trial started on Feb. 3 and left only Cheron Shelton to go to trial on his own.
A jury acquitted Shelton of all counts on Feb. 14.
Owen Seman, who represents Jamiere Dehonney in the vigil shooting, also requested that he be allowed to review the transcripts from the Wilkinsburg case related to Witness No. 3.
“I imagine they will reveal very little about that,” Judge Borkowski responded. “Everything you’re asking for is part of the internal operating, decision-making apparatus that unfolded in the district attorney’s office.”
The prosecution did not offer any explanation for its decision — four days before the trial was slated to start — to not to call Witness No. 3 in the Wilkinsburg case.
However, in the days leading up to it, there was a flurry of defense motions in the case alleging discovery violations by the prosecution regarding the witness.
On Jan. 24, defense attorneys for Shelton and Thomas learned that Witness
No. 3, who prosecutors have said is believed to have been involved in or aware of more than a dozen crimes, received financial consideration and relocation services from the Allegheny County Police Department.
At that same hearing, Thomas’ attorney, Casey White, said that he had recently obtained a recording of a four-minute interview with Witness No. 3 from March 2018 in which the witness admits his involvement in the death of 15-month-old Marcus L. White Jr., who was shot and killed during a family picnic in East Hills on May 21, 2013.
Mr. White represents Beck in the vigil shooting.
At Thursday’s status conference, Mr. Nightingale repeated the information that Witness No. 3 implicated himself in the Marcus White shooting.
That prompted ire from Assistant District Attorney Russ Broman, who responded, “That’s an improper grand jury disclosure by Mr. White.”
Judge Borkowski told the defense attorneys
Thursday that he would review their request but that he did not know if the prosecution’s decision regarding Witness No. 3 is discoverable.
Mr. Seman argued it’s a credibility issue.
“In this witness, Witness No. 3, we have evidence the district attorney’s office made a conscious decision not to use his testimony in another case. We know ... there were significant credibility issues,” Mr. Seman said. “If that’s going to be the main witness against our clients, I think that’s absolutely relevant information for our jury to hear.”
Mr. Nightingale also asked that Mr. Broman turn over any information about what considerations — financial or otherwise — were given to Witness No. 3 in exchange for his cooperation.
“We’re entitled to know any and all consideration given by the district attorney’s office,” Mr. Nightingale said.