pennsylvania death row | My Crime Library

Landon May Pennsylvania Death Row

Landon May was sentenced to death by the State of Pennsylvania for a double murder committed during a robbery. According to court documents Landon May and three other broke into a home believing the owners were on vacation however they were wrong. Landon May and the three accomplices would murder the two home owners before fleeing. Landon May would be arrested, convicted and sentenced to death

Landon May 2022 Information

Parole Number: 850DV
Age: 39
Date of Birth: 07/04/1982
Race/Ethnicity: WHITE
Height: 5′ 08″
Gender: MALE
Citizenship: USA
Complexion: LIGHT
Current Location: PHOENIX

Landon May More News

Judge Lawrence F. Stengel responded in detail to each of May’s complaints, concluding in a 52-page opinion that every step of May’s case — from his initial discussions with police to the final imposition of the death penalty — was handled legally and fairly.

May, 21, of Narvon, was convicted of killing Lucy and Terry Smith in their Ephrata townhouse in September 2001. He was also convicted of sexually assaulting Mrs. Smith before she died, plus a number of other crimes.

When May was sentenced to death, he made history by joining his father, Freeman May, 55, on death row — the first father and son to be sentenced to death for separate murders in Pennsylvania.

In his post-conviction appeal, May’s new defense attorney, Christopher Lyden, raised numerous issues, including that Stengel was wrong to exclude the testimony of a defense-hired psychiatrist, Dr. Neil Blumberg.

The psychiatrist concluded Landon May was genetically predisposed to commit criminal acts. He came to the conclusion after reviewing Freeman May’s convictions for murder and sexual assault, and the case of Sidney May — Freeman’s father and Landon’s grandfather — who was convicted of sexually assaulting his daughters.

But Stengel noted that during the trial, he and attorneys for both sides agreed that Blumberg’s testimony was irrelevant because May had never met his grandfather, and he was 6 months old when his father, Freeman, was imprisoned.

“Dr. Blumberg’s attempt to relate Landon May’s actions to his family history was speculative at best and would have been misleading and distracting to the jury,” Stengel wrote.

Stengel also rejected Lyden’s points that the pictures of the murder scene were too graphic to be shown to the jury and that the prosecution gave credibility to other convicted criminals who testified against May.

“In this case, the evidence against May was overwhelming. May admitted to actively participating in the double murder in a signed statement to police. Specifically, he admitted to cutting the throats of Lucy and Terry Smith. Additionally, May’s semen was found in Lucy Smith’s mouth,” Stengel wrote.

“Any “error’ in reference to the testimony or credibility of (Steven) Estes or Navarro Perez was harmless,” the judge wrote.

As for the pictures, Stengel added: “Without these photographs, it would have been impossible for the jury to grasp fully the severity of the wounds inflicted upon these two people.”

Lyden’s attorney argued that May’s confession to police should never have been entered into evidence.

Stengel noted that detectives repeatedly explained to May, “in a complete, clear and legally sufficient manner,” his legal rights.

In fact, when police transcribed the statement into writing and May read it, Stengel wrote, “May noted that he left something out and several sentences were added in handwriting. May also corrected one grammatical error and then signed the statement.”

May received the death penalty, in part, because of the sexual assault on Mrs. Smith, a 51-year-old elementary school principal. Terry Smith, 49, was president of a small manufacturing company.

Michael Bourgeois — Mrs. Smith’s son and May’s co-defendant — received a sentence of life in prison for participating in the murder, as did the so-called mastermind of the murder plot, Drenea Rodriguez.

Prosecutors said Rodriguez feared the Smiths would separate her from Bourgeois, her 18-year-old live-in lover.

May is being housed at Graterford, the state’s largest, maximum-security prison facility, which is 31 miles northwest of Philadelphia.

Pennsylvania houses its death-row inmates in two facilities, Graterford and Greene, in southwestern Pennsylvania. May’s father is being held at Greene.

Landon May’s case has only just started the appellate process. Death penalty cases are reviewed for years, and the case of his father, who was convicted in 1989, is still in the appeal process.

In addition, Landon May still faces a charge in Lancaster County Court in connection with the shooting of a bicyclist near Fivepointville.

As police investigated the Smith murder, they learned that May and his cohorts allegedly were involved in a series of unrelated crimes, including the attempted robbery//shooting of the bicyclist.

One of May’s friends, Steven Estes, 20, admitted to participating in the bicyclist’s shooting, but said he was driving the truck and May shot the man. May told police it was Estes who shot the man.

Estes is expected to testify against May when the shooting incident case goes to trial this fall.

https://lancasteronline.com/news/judge-rejects-landon-mays-genetic-claim/article_575a5a4a-d771-5184-b818-c6dc497b1231.html

Lenwood Mason Pennsylvania Death Row

Lenwood Mason was sentenced to death by the State of Pennsylvania for a woman\s murder. According to court documents Lenwood Mason was sent to jail after beating up the victim, days after being released Mason would stab the woman to death. Lenwood Mason would be arrested, convicted and sentenced to death

Lenwood Mason 2022 Information

Parole Number: 8113S
Age: 56
Date of Birth: 03/21/1965
Race/Ethnicity: BLACK
Height: 5′ 07″
Gender: MALE
Citizenship: USA
Complexion: LIGHT
Current Location: PHOENIX

Lenwood Mason More News

Viewed under these standards, the record below establishes that on March 31, 1994, police were called to the 3800 block of Clearfield Street in Philadelphia. Officer Terry Brown observed Lenwood Mason walking on Clearfield Street, with Iona Jeffries close to his side. Noting a frightened look on Ms. Jeffries’ face, the officer approached her and asked if she was all right. The officer noticed bruises on Ms. Jeffries’ forehead, shoulder, neck and mouth. Although Appellant told the officer that Ms. Jeffries had been attacked by several other women, Ms. Jeffries informed the officer that Appellant had actually caused her injuries. Ms. Jeffries explained to the officer that she was reluctant to press charges against Appellant, as she feared he would kill her. Based on his own observations and Ms. Jeffries’ statements, however, the officer placed Appellant under arrest.

Approximately three months later, on the evening of June 18, 1994, Ms. Jeffries was at a bar, Cadillac Slim’s, with Lenwood Mason and several of her friends. Appellant had been released from prison two days earlier, on June 16, 1994. When Ms. Jeffries and her friends decided to leave Cadillac Slim’s and go to another club, Ms. Jeffries asked that a male acquaintance drive Appellant home, as she did not want him to accompany her to the club. Upset by Ms. Jeffries’ plans to exclude him, Appellant yelled, “You want it like that?” and ran out of the bar.

At approximately 9:30 the following morning, Ms. Jeffries’ mother, Mrs. Wisteria Jeffries, was at her home when she heard Appellant banging on the door. As Wisteria Jeffries approached the door, she saw Appellant’s hand protruding through the screen door. When Wisteria Jeffries asked Appellant what he wanted, he replied that he needed to speak with Ms. Jeffries. Wisteria Jeffries explained that Ms. Jeffries was asleep. After Appellant insisted that he speak with Ms. Jeffries, Wisteria Jeffries told Appellant to wait outside while she got Ms. Jeffries. She locked the door and went upstairs to Ms. Jeffries’ room, where Ms. Jeffries was sleeping on a bed with her then three year-old son, Anthony. Ms. Jeffries refused to come downstairs. Wisteria Jeffries returned to the front door and told Appellant that Ms. Jeffries was sleeping and that he would have to wait to speak with her. Appellant then forced his way into the house, pushed past Wisteria Jeffries, and ran up the stairs. Wisteria Jeffries immediately called the police.

Wisteria Jeffries retrieved a knife from the kitchen and began to head upstairs, when she saw Appellant descending the steps. Lenwood Mason stated to Wisteria Jeffries, “I got her now.” At that point, Wisteria Jeffries attempted to stab Lenwood Mason, but he pushed her aside and ran outside, where a neighbor, Greg Bell, saw Appellant placing what appeared to be a knife into the waistband of his pants. Wisteria Jeffries ran upstairs to Ms. Jeffries’ bedroom and found Ms. Jeffries bleeding profusely from multiple stab wounds. Police and rescue units arrived and Ms. Jeffries was taken to the hospital, where she was pronounced dead. Later that same day, Appellant surrendered to the police and was charged with murder in the first degree, burglary and possessing an instrument of crime.

At Appellant’s trial, Dr. Haresh G. Mirchandani, the chief medical examiner for Philadelphia County, testified that the cause of Ms. Jeffries’ death had been multiple (eighteen) knife wounds to the body. According to Dr. Mirchandani, Ms. Jeffries had suffered knife wounds to her head, neck, chest, back, abdomen, arm, groin and leg. Ms. Jeffries’ son, who was four years old at the time of the trial, testified that he was on the bed with his mother when Appellant entered the bedroom and stabbed his mother with a knife.

Appellant testified on his own behalf, claiming that he had been drinking and doing drugs, including PCP for the first time, at the bar on the night before the murder. He testified that after he smoked the PCP, everything went blurry and that he did not recall leaving Cadillac Slim’s or going to Ms. Jeffries’ house on the morning of her murder. He further maintained that he did not regain his senses again until late in the evening on the day of the murder, when he was already in jail. Appellant’s mother and brother also testified in Appellant’s defense. Essentially, they claimed that when they saw Appellant on the day of the murder, he was under the influence of drugs and that his condition was unlike any “high” that they had ever seen him experience.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/pa-supreme-court/1225055.html

Kevin Marinelli Pennsylvania Death Row

Kevin Marinelli was sentenced to death by the State of Pennsylvania for a murder committed during a robbery. According to court documents Kevin Marinelli and two other men would force their way into a home where the victim was tortured before being ultimately murdered. Kevin Marinelli would be arrested, convicted and sentenced to death

Kevin Marinelli 2022 Information

Parole Number: 3724O
Age: 49
Date of Birth: 04/30/1972
Race/Ethnicity: WHITE
Height: 6′ 01″
Gender: MALE
Citizenship: USA
Complexion: LIGHT
Current Location: PHOENIX

Kevin Marinelli More News

On May 18, 1995, Marinelli was found guilty of first degree murder, robbery, conspiracy to commit robbery, burglary, theft by unlawful taking, receiving stolen property and aggravated assault, following a jury trial in the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland County, Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court summarized the relevant facts as follows:

The testimony at appellant’s trial established the following facts. On the evening of April 26, 1994, appellant and his brother, Mark Marinelli (Mark), and Kirchoff met at appellant’s apartment to plan a burglary of the residence of Conrad Dumchock (Dumchock), whom Mark knew to have stereo equipment. The three men obtained weapons, disguises, and gloves in preparation for the burglary, and proceeded to Dumchock’s home in Kulpmont.
Dumchock was home alone and had just spoken to his sister and brother-in-law on the telephone for forty-five minutes. The Marinelli brothers and Kirchoff arrived at Dumchock’s home and initially had difficulty gaining entry. Observing that Dumchock’s car was parked outside his house and concerned about the possibility of being discovered, the threesome left Dumchock’s residence but returned a few minutes later to again attempt to enter. Eventually, they broke a small window in the kitchen door and entered the residence.
Upon entering Dumchock’s residence, appellant immediately proceeded to the second floor, where he encountered Dumchock. When Dumchock requested that appellant leave his home, appellant
struck Dumchock’s face with his gun and yelled for assistance from Mark and Kirchoff.

The appellant and Kirchoff continued to beat Dumchock, despite Dumchock’s pleading with them to take what they wanted and leave him alone. The three rummaged through Dumchock’s home looking for items to take and asking Dumchock where his guns and money were located. When Dumchock would moan or not answer, appellant would hit Dumchock again.

Mark and Kirchoff departed Dumchock’s home after they had loaded the items they wished to steal, while appellant remained in the residence with Dumchock. Appellant then shot Dumchock twice in the head, with one shot into Dumchock’s eye and the other directly between Dumchock’s eyes. Appellant then ran out of Dumchock’s house and exclaimed, “Let’s get out of here!”
The threesome returned to Kirchoff’s home and divided the items stolen from Dumchock. A short while later, the Marinelli brothers returned to Dumchock’s house and took a motorcycle from the victim’s porch.
Appellant attempted to start the motorcycle on compression, with Mark following in a car. They were observed crossing the main road in Kulpmont heading toward the other side of town. When the motorcycle would not start, appellant abandoned it.

On the morning following the killing, Clyde Metzger, who was waiting for Dumchock to drive him to work, entered the victim’s home and discovered Dumchock’s stereo equipment had been disarranged and Dumchock’s dog was shaking. Metzger called out to Dumchock but received no response. Metzger became concerned and left Dumchock’s home, and headed to the police station. On his way there, Metzger encountered a Kulpmont Police Sergeant Detective Robert Muldowney, and related to him the circumstances he had found.
Sergeant Muldowney entered Dumchock’s home, noting that the storm door was open, the inside door was propped open with a chair, and the glass had been broken from a window in the door. Inside the house, Sergeant Muldowney discovered that telephone cords had been cut. Upstairs, Sergeant Muldowney discovered the victim’s cold body lying at the top of the stairway landing. Sergeant Muldowney noted that Dumchock’s bedroom was disheveled, with drawers removed from the dresser and various items strewn on the victim’s bed. Pennsylvania State Police and County Coroner Richard Ulrich were called to the scene. The victim’s sister also arrived at his house and noted that Dumchock’s motorcycle was missing. The motorcycle was later recovered hidden in some brush where it had been abandoned. Dumchock’s brother-in-law informed police that guns, tools, and electronic equipment were also missing from Dumchock’s residence. One of Dumchock’s friends, David Dormer, was brought to Dumchock’s residence to assist police in determining which stereo equipment, as well as liquor, was missing.

On May 25, 1994, Mark Marinelli’s girlfriend, Deeann Chamberlain, turned over to Coal Township Police certain weapons which Mark had brought to her home. These weapons were later identified as having belonged to the victim. County Coroner Ulrich was at the Coal Township police station when Ms. Chamberlain turned over these weapons. The coroner connected the items with the Dumchock killing, and notified the District Attorney and State Police. Further, Ms. Chamberlain allowed Shamokin Police to come to her home and remove other items Mark had left there, including a telephone answering machine. Coroner Ulrich recognized the telephone answering machine as being of the type reported missing from Dumchock’s house, and he notified the State Police.
Additionally, a friend of appellant, Nathan Reigle, was questioned by police about the Dumchock murder. Reigle stated to police that appellant had bragged about how he had killed Dumchock. A search of appellant’s residence by police recovered a number of items, including stereo equipment, later identified as property belonging to the victim. After being questioned by police, appellant gave police
both an oral and a taped confession as to his involvement in the Dumchock killing.

https://casetext.com/case/marinelli-v-beard-2

George Lopez Pennsylvania Death Row

George Lopez and Edwin Romero were both sentenced to death by the State of Pennsylvania for the murder of a man during a robbery. According to court documents George Lopez and Edwin Romero would attack a landlord who had come to pick up the rent and would rob and murder the man. George Lopez and Edwin Romero were both arrested, convicted and sentenced to death

George Lopez 2022 Information

Parole Number: 401AQ
Age: 62
Date of Birth: 03/26/1959
Race/Ethnicity: HISPANIC
Height: 6′ 00″
Gender: MALE
Citizenship: USA
Complexion: LIGHT
Current Location: PHOENIX

Edwin Romero 2022 Information

Parole Number: 391AI
Age: 57
Date of Birth: 04/13/1964
Race/Ethnicity: HISPANIC
Height: 5′ 05″
Gender: MALE
Citizenship: USA
Complexion: LIGHT
Current Location: PHOENIX

George Lopez More News

A Lehigh County jury last night convicted two men of first-degree murder for killing and robbing Allentown architect and landlord David Bolasky.

The 10 men and two women will decide whether to sentence Edwin Rios Romero and George Ivan Lopez to life in prison or death by lethal injection.

Jurors deliberated about five hours before finding the two men guilty of murder, robbery, theft, receiving stolen property and conspiracy.

A dozen deputy sheriffs guarded the courtroom as the verdict was read at 8:55 p.m. before more than 20 family members, friends and co-workers of Bolasky at Wallace & Watson Associates and an expressionless Romero and Lopez. Bolasky’s relatives nodded in agreement.

Jurors will return to court at 9 a.m. today to hear mitigating evidence that defense lawyers will present to spare the men’s lives and aggravating factors that prosecutors will say warrant the death penalty.

Judge Thomas A. Wallitsch did not sequester jurors last night but cautioned them not to read or listen to news reports.

Bolasky’s wife, Brenda, and other family members hugged Assistant District Attorney Gavin Holihan and Allentown Detective Sgt. Joseph Hanna.

Romero, 30, and Lopez, 36, conspired with two other men to rob and kill Bolasky on Jan. 3, 1995, when he went to an Allentown apartment building at 625 N. 6th St. to collect rent.

Lopez’s nephew, Miguel Moreno, 24, lived in the third-floor apartment where Bolasky was killed. Moreno, who was the first charged with homicide, led police to Lopez, Romero and George Ortiz Barbosa.

Barbosa, 24, pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and is serving a life sentence. Prosecutors withdrew the death penalty in exchange for his plea.

Bolasky, 41, was hit on the head, strangled with a towel and hogtied. His body was wrapped in bedding, carried down the steps to his van and discarded in a wooded area off N. Bradford Street in Allentown.

Romero and Barbosa fled to Puerto Rico after the slaying, and Lopez was arrested in Florida.

The case against Moreno, who was a prosecution witness, is pending. Prosecutors aren’t seeking the death penalty for him.

Barbosa testified against Lopez but refused to testify against Romero, who is his cousin’s boyfriend.

In the sentencing hearing today, Holihan intends to tell the jury about Romero’s conviction for homicide in Puerto Rico. Before Bolasky’s slaying, Romero and Barbosa were in prison there and escaped during jail construction. They met Lopez in Florida and drove north.

Defense lawyer Glenn Clark will put Romero on the witness stand but no family members because Romero’s wife and two children live in Puerto Rico.

Lawyer James Heidecker will call Lopez’s mother and brother as witnesses.

The defense questioned the credibility of Moreno, Barbosa and another inmate in the county jail, who said he talked with the defendants about the crime. No fingerprints or samples of blood, hair or skin connected Romero and Lopez to the slaying, the defense said.

Moreno said he took Bolasky up to the apartment, where the other three men were waiting, and went downstairs.

Barbosa earlier told police that Bolasky was struck on the head, and Romero and Lopez held the struggling man while Barbosa twisted a towel around his neck. Bolasky fought but stopped after 10 to 20 minutes, and Romero and Lopez took turns twisting the towel, Barbosa told police.

Moreno and Barbosa initially lied about their involvement and that of the others. The defense accused the prosecution of making deals with the devil and his minions to build a case.

“Don’t sell my client’s soul to the devil,” Heidecker implored the jury. “And don’t sell yours.”

Holihan argued that Moreno’s and Barbosa’s versions were supported by many small pieces of evidence and minor details about the crime, which only the conspirators could have known.

Holihan conceded that Moreno and Barbosa are despicable characters but asked jurors to separate the message from the messengers.

He said the strongest corroborating evidence was Barbosa’s plea to murder. If what Moreno told police wasn’t true, why would Barbosa plead guilty and lose a lifetime of freedom, Holihan asked.

Forsaking the death penalty against Moreno and Barbosa in exchange for their testimony was the price prosecutors had to pay to get all the men involved in the slaying, Holihan said.

https://www.mcall.com/news/mc-xpm-1996-03-20-3073174-story.html

John Koehler Pennsylvania Death Row

John Koehler was sentenced to death by the State of Pennsylvania for the murders of a woman and her nine year old son. According to court documents John Koehler set up the murders of his girlfriend and her nine year old son. John Koeheler would be arrested, convicted and sentenced to death

John Koehler 2022 Information

Parole Number: 306AO
Age: 61
Date of Birth: 11/29/1960
Race/Ethnicity: WHITE
Height: 5′ 08″
Gender: MALE
Citizenship: USA
Complexion: LIGHT
Current Location: PHOENIX

John Koehler More News

The record establishes that in 1996, John Koehler was convicted of the first degree murder of Regina Clark and her nine year-old son, Austin Hopper. The evidence presented at Appellant’s trial established the following, as recited in our opinion on direct appeal. Commonwealth v. Koehler, 558 Pa. 334, 737 A.2d 225 (1999). In August of 1994, Appellant informed 18 year-old William Curley that he was a “hit man” for the mob. Appellant attempted to recruit Curley into his “profession” by promising that Curley could earn “six digits.”² Curley entertained the proposition, believing that he would only kill drug dealers and individuals connected with the mob, not innocent people.

Eight months later, on April 17, 1995, while Curley was staying at the home of his friends, Melissa Mack and Ricky Hunsinger, John Koehler informed Curley that he was bringing “two packages” and wanted Curly to “deliver them.” Unbeknownst to Curley, Appellant meant that he was bringing two individuals to Curley, and wanted Curley to kill them. Curley unwittingly agreed. On April 18, 1995, at 4:00 a.m., Appellant arrived at the Mack/Hunsinger residence, accompanied by Regina Clark, with whom Appellant had a romantic relationship, and Clark’s nine year-old son, Austin Hopper. Melissa Mack had the opportunity to observe Clark and her son while they stayed in Mack’s home. It is unclear why Appellant chose Clark to be the victim of Curley’s first killing.

Shortly after John Koehler arrived, he explained to Curley that he wanted him to kill Clark. Curley, however, stated that he did not want to participate in the murder. In response, Appellant threatened that if Curley refused to kill Clark, Appellant would kill Curley. Appellant also gave Curley a loaded .22 caliber Baretta to use for the murder, and the two men located an abandoned refrigerator at a dump where they could dispose of Clark’s body after the shooting. Curley again told Appellant that he did not want to kill Clark, to which Appellant responded, “kill or be killed.” N.T. Mar. 28, 1996, Vol. VII at 47. The men thereafter agreed that Curley would kill Clark later that afternoon on Stone Jug Road.

Before acting upon their plans, John Koehler t and Curley drove Clark and Hopper to a restaurant. Appellant entered the restaurant, while Curley, Clark, and Hopper drove off, purportedly to retrieve another vehicle. The true purpose of the diversion was for Curley to kill Clark on Stone Jug Road. Curley drove to that location with Clark and Hopper, and pointed a gun to the back of Clark’s head. Neither Clark nor Hopper observed the gun. Curley, however, could not pull the trigger, and, instead drove Clark and Hopper back to the restaurant to join Appellant.

That same afternoon, John Koehler and Curley discussed where the murder should take place, and decided that it would occur at the home of Janet Schrader, as Curley was a friend of Schrader’s son, Kirk. Hours later, Curley proceeded to the Schraders’ residence, accompanied by Appellant, Clark, and Hopper. Everyone entered the Schraders’ home, with the exception of Curley, who remained in the garage. Appellant and Kirk Schrader later joined Curley in the garage to discuss ways to kill Clark. When Curley told Appellant that he did not think he could execute the plan, Appellant responded that Curley had to kill Clark. Ultimately, Curley waited in the garage alone, and when Clark entered, shot her three times in the head. Curley then placed Clark in the trunk of his car. Appellant came to the garage to check Clark’s pulse, and believed she was still alive. Appellant then suggested that Curley slit Clark’s throat. Curley grabbed a knife, and then he and Kirk Schrader entered the car and drove off, hearing a thumping noise emanating from the trunk.

Curley dropped Kirk off at the home of Kirk’s friend, Roger Hitchcock, and proceeded to dispose of Clark’s body in the abandoned refrigerator at the dump. Curley slightly cut Clark’s throat with the knife, closed the refrigerator door, and returned to the Schraders’ residence. When he arrived, Appellant told Curley that Clark’s nine year-old son, Austin Hopper, was a “loose link,” and had to be killed. Shortly thereafter, Curley accompanied Hopper to the garage, and shot Hopper three times in the head and twice in the body. Curley then drove to “Snake Road,” and placed the child’s body in a sluice pipe.

When Curley arrived back at the Schraders’ residence, he and John Koehler cleaned the garage where the shootings took place. The two men thereafter returned to the abandoned refrigerator to secure it with a lock and chain, but the chain was too short. The men then drove to “Twin Ponds,” where, upon Appellant’s suggestion, Curley disposed of the knife and the gun used in the murders. Appellant later drove Curley to the Mack/Hunsinger residence, left him, and drove away. The following week, Curley moved to North Carolina.

Eight days after the murders, on April 26, 1995, a man searching for recyclables at the dump discovered Clark’s body in the abandoned refrigerator, and contacted the police. Melissa Mack, with whom John Koehler, Curley, and Clark had stayed prior to the killings, heard a news broadcast, which indicated that a woman’s body wearing particular clothing had been discovered one-half mile from Mack’s home. Mack recognized the clothing as that worn by Clark on the day of the shooting, and called police. Mack later identified the body discovered in the refrigerator as Clark’s, and told police that Clark had been travelling with a child. Mack further consented to a search of her home, which revealed, inter alia, a lock and bullets.

On April 28, 1995, police officers travelled to North Carolina to interview Curley. Curley confessed to the shootings and told the officers where the boy’s body could be found. He also revealed Appellant’s involvement in the crimes, and disclosed where they had discarded the murder weapon. At 11:00 p.m. that evening, the police found Austin Hopper’s body, and later recovered from Twin Ponds the gun and knife used in the murders. The police thereafter arrested Curley and charged him with the first degree murders of Clark and Hopper, various counts of criminal conspiracy, kidnapping, and aggravated assault, and one count each of endangering the welfare of a child and possession of an instrument of crime. The police also subsequently arrested Appellant for the first degree murders of Clark and Hopper, and charged him with related offenses. The Commonwealth tried Curley and Appellant separately, prosecuting Curley first.

Curley waived his right to a jury, and proceeded to a bench trial based on stipulated facts on March 6, 1996. Immediately prior to Curley’s trial, however, the Commonwealth nolle prossed all the lesser charges against Curley, and proceed to prosecute him for two counts of first degree murder and one count of burglary. During Curley’s trial, the Commonwealth’s theory of criminal liability was that although Appellant solicited Curley to kill Clark and Hopper, Curley acted with his own free will in carrying out the crimes. Curley was thereafter convicted of two counts of first degree murder and one count of burglary.

On March 25, 1996, after Curley was convicted, but prior to his penalty proceeding, Appellant’s trial commenced. To demonstrate Appellant’s criminal liability for the first degree murders of Clark and Hopper based on a conspiracy and accomplice theory, the Commonwealth presented Curley’s testimony, which described in detail Appellant’s participation in the crimes. Curley informed the jury that in exchange for his testimony against Appellant, the Commonwealth would stipulate in Curley’s upcoming penalty proceeding that his cooperation served as mitigating evidence. The Commonwealth also presented the testimony of Kirk Schrader, whose involvement in this matter has its own prolix history, which is explained fully infra at –––– – ––––. Schrader testified that he observed Curley and Appellant discuss plans to kill Clark on the day of the murders. He explained that later that day, he heard gunshots being fired in his garage and saw Curley in the garage with his arm extended. The cars in the garage purportedly blocked Schrader’s view of Curley’s gun and Clark. Schrader further testified that he did not receive anything from the Commonwealth in exchange for his testimony.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/pa-supreme-court/1591847.html