Citing politics, attorney says Carter judge should recuse herself

The attorney for a man whose long-running dispute with a neighbor ended with him fatally shooting the man outside their West Goshen homes wants the Common Pleas Court judge set to oversee his trial to step aside from the case, citing her possible elevation to the federal bench.

Clayton P. Carter III’s defense attorney, Joseph P. Green Jr. of West Chester, last week filed a motion asking Judge Ann Marie Wheatcraft to formally recuse herself from presiding over the trial, currently scheduled to get underway in December. The case had been assigned to Wheatcraft only last month, after Judge Anthony Sarcione — who had overseen the case since it was filed in court last year — said he would not be able to hear it before he re-

tires at the end of the year.

In the motion, which Wheatcraft heard in court on Wednesday, Green said that the case against Carter was likely to include suggestions that Carter had shot his neighbor, G. Brooks Jennings, for political reasons. Jennings was a Republican committeeman in the township, and Carter, at the time of the shooting, had several anti-Trump signs in his front yard, months after the presidential election.

Green said the political nature of the case had been “widely covered” in the local and national media, citing one post on the internet titled, “Democrat Clayton Carter Murders Chesco GOP Committeeman Brooks Jennings.” He stated that the prosecution intended to bring up the political differences of the two men as the cause of the conflict between the two.

“The ‘political’ nature of the coverage of and commentary regarding this prosecution is likely to escalate as the trial approaches in this fall’s election season,” Green wrote, citing the upcoming mid-term November elections pitting Democrats against Republicans in vote-rich Chester County.

How does that bear on Wheatcraft’s ability to preside over the trial? Green said it stems from what outsiders may view as her own political connections.

“It has been widely rumored within the Chester County legal community that (Wheatcraft), originally elected with the support of the Chester County Republican Committee, is being considered for an appointment to a federal judgeship by the current Republican administration,” Green wrote in his motion. “(Wheatcraft) should not be put in the position in this case of making evidentiary and other rulings that will be spun, and may be perceived, as favoring either Democrats or Republicans.”

In court, Green told Wheatcraft, “It’s not fair to you to be criticized over political considerations.” Although he expressed confidence that the judge “could and would be fair in this case,” Green nevertheless said she should recuse herself because others could perceive a conflict.

He did not offer any specific evidence concerning Wheatcraft’s possible federal judicial aspirations, only the reference to rumors in the community.

Under the state’s Code of Judicial Conduct provides that judges should recuse themselves from any matter in which they either have a conflict that would affect their ability to be impartial, but also those matters in which there is an appearance of a conflict. Green’s motion addresses the second of those cautions.

Wheatcraft did not comment on Green’s motion and took it under advisement, as she did other issues that were discussed during the two-hour long pre-trial hearing Wednesday.

But the lead prosecutor in the case, Deputy District Attorney Thomas Ost-Prisco, told the judge that he did not believe she needed to recuse herself. He disagreed with Green’s statement that he intended to cite the political differences that may have existed between Carter and Jennings as the cause of the fatal shooting.

“I do not believe there are any significant political issues in this case,” OstPrisco said during the proceeding. Whatever differences over local or national politics may have existed between Carter and Jennings, “that is one of the many things the victim and the defendant argued over.

“We do not believe this was (the result of) national politics,” he said. “Regardless of what bloggers believe, it’s not much of an issue.”

On Aug. 8, 2017, West Goshen police charged Carter, 52, with first-degree murder and related offenses in the fatal shooting of Jennings,

51, who was found dead in his driveway in the 300 block of Box Elder Drive. The defendant and victim were next-door neighbors. Carter claims that he acted in self-defense.

Police had been called to their homes the evening before to try to resolve a dispute concerning cursing and backyard video recording, one in a long line of disputes involving the two. Although the situation was calmed at the time, the two men apparently squared off early the next morning.

According to the affidavit of probable cause filed for his arrest, Carter arrived home about 1 a.m. after running an errand and took some grocery items inside his house. He and Jennings again confronted one another, and Carter retrieved a gun from inside the home he shared with his wife and father-in-law.

An argument apparently erupted between the two men over a spotlight that Jennings had trained on his own car, parked in front of Carter’s house. Police say Carter then drove his vehicle into his own yard while shining his high-beams on Jennings. The two men engaged in a verbal argument in the space between their homes when the gunshots rang out. The victim’s wife later told police she heard one shot, and looked out the window and watched as Carter stood over her husband and fired a second shot as he lay on the ground.

Carter acknowledged to police in a later interview that he had shot Jennings, but said it was because Jennings had threatened him with a knife that was found at the scene.

Evidence that may come out at the trial was discussed during the pre-trial hearing before Wheatcraft on Wednesday.

Green said that he had engaged a toxicology expert to testify about Jennings’ blood alcohol level at the time of his death, telling Wheatcraft that the BAC was .198, more than twice the legal limit. He also said he had evidence that Jennings

had been drinking since 9 a.m. the day before his death.

“There is no doubt that Mr. Jennings was intoxicated and causing trouble,” at the scene before and after the police were called at 7 p.m. Aug. 7, 2017.

Ost-Prisco acknowledged that medical reports showed that Jennings had been intoxicated, but questioned whether evidence of his drinking earlier should be permitted. “I don’t see how the victim’s drinking at 9 a.m. in the morning is at al relevant to the events at 1 a.m. the next day,” he said. “The only purpose would be

to “smear the victim.”

Both attorneys, however, agreed that evidence about certain prior confrontations between the two men should be permitted at the trial, including one instance in which carer allegedly pulled a handgun on Jennings. Green said he would argue that the incident was spurred by Jennings coming to Carter’s home nd creating a disturbance, at which time Carter attempted to defend himself.

In addition, Green told Wheatcraft that he had hired a forensic psychologist, Gerald Cooke, to evaluate his client’s mental

health, and that his condition might become part of the defense’s case. That led to Ost-Prisco complaining that he would have to get a prosecution expert to evaluate Carter in order to counter whatever Cooke might testify to.

And that, the prosecutor said, would inevitably delay the trial date beyond the start of the new year.

Wheatcraft did not rule on any of the pre-trial matters, but may do so sometime this week.