pennsylvania | My Crime Library

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

Darien Houser Pennsylvania Death Row

Darien Houser was sentenced to death by the State of Pennsylvania for the murder of a warrant officer. According to court documents Darien Houser would get into a shootout with three warrant officers who were attempting to arrest him killing one of them. Darien Houser would be arrested, convicted and sentenced to death.

Darien Houser 2022 Information

Parole Number: 5169U
Age: 58
Date of Birth: 03/22/1963
Race/Ethnicity: BLACK
Height: 5′ 09″
Gender: MALE
Citizenship: USA
Complexion: MEDIUM
Current Location: PHOENIX

Darien Houser More News

Hours after Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf announced a moratorium on the death penalty, the widow of a Philadelphia warrant officer told Eyewitness News she is devastated.

“When I heard it on the news, I went off the handle. I started crying,” Gretchen LeClair said.

LeClaire’s husband, Joseph, was shot and killed on March 19, 2004 when he was serving a warrant to Darien Houser. Police say Houser opened fire on LeClaire and two other officers. The two survived, but LeClaire died just a few hours later.

“He was such a good man. He didn’t deserve to get killed,” LeClaire said.

Sergeant Joseph LeClaire served three tours in Vietnam, and spent 9 years with the First Judicial District Warrant District.

“I can’t get my life on. I can’t move forward,” she told Eyewitness News.

Darien Houser is on death row, and now his fate hangs in the balance because of the Wolf moratorium.

“I will never get peace. The only time I will get peace is if the guy is executed,” she said.

Wolfe’s office released the following statement from the Governor on Friday:

“Today’s action comes after significant consideration and reflection,” said Governor Wolf. “This moratorium is in no way an expression of sympathy for the guilty on death row, all of whom have been convicted of committing heinous crimes. This decision is based on a flawed system that has been proven to be an endless cycle of court proceedings as well as ineffective, unjust, and expensive. Since the reinstatement of the death penalty, 150 people have been exonerated from death row nationwide, including six men in Pennsylvania. Recognizing the seriousness of these concerns, the Senate established the bipartisan Pennsylvania Task Force and Advisory Commission to conduct a study of the effectiveness of capital punishment in Pennsylvania. Today’s moratorium will remain in effect until this commission has produced its recommendation and all concerns are addressed satisfactorily.”

To read more about the moratorium, click here.

https://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2015/02/13/widow-of-warrant-officer-speaks-out-about-death-penalty-moratorium/

Thomas Hawkins Pennsylvania Death Row

Thomas Hawkins was sentenced to death by the State of Pennsylvania for the sexual assault and murder of his fourteen year old niece. According to court documents Thomas Hawkins would sexually assault his fourteen year old niece before murdering the teenage girl using a phone cord and stabbing her. Thomas Hawkins would be arrested, convicted and sentenced to death.

Thomas Hawkins 2022 Information

Parole Number: 5403P
Age: 58
Date of Birth: 12/31/1963
Race/Ethnicity: BLACK
Height: 5′ 09″
Gender: MALE
Citizenship: USA
Complexion: MEDIUM
Current Location: PHOENIX

Thomas Hawkins More News

At approximately 5:00 p.m., on June 4, 1989, the body of fourteen-year-old Andrea Nicole Thomas, who had been strangled to death, was found on her bed on the second floor of her home at 455 Old Reading Pike, Stowe, Pennsylvania. The victim’s aunt, Cherisse Hawkins, returned to the home in the late afternoon to discover the body. She also found the front door unlocked and partially ajar and the living room in disarray. The victim’s dress and bloody underpants were found on the downstair’s living room floor along with various blood and fecal stains. Additionally, there was a plastic garbage bag, like a burglar might use to carry away booty, found in the living room on which Appellant’s fingerprints and no others were found. The victim’s body was found in her bed upstairs, nude except for a bra pulled up above her breasts. Her body was covered with a blanket, and a pillow covered her face. There were puncture wounds in her back and a two-pronged fork with bent tines was also found.

*126 Examination of the body by a forensic pathologist revealed vaginal bruises, scrapes and tears consistent with sexual penetration. The victim was strangled to death by ligature (a telephone and extension wire), and her back bore the stab wounds.

Thomas Hawkins, the uncle of the deceased, was one of the relatives summoned to the scene of the crime by the family. He arrived at what was also his parent’s house that evening (June 4) and gave a statement admitting that he had gone to the house that same morning around 9:00 a.m., had climbed through the window, had seen his niece, Andrea, had played and wrestled with her and had left at 9:45 a.m. after failing to find the keys to his father’s car.

Linking Thomas Hawkins to the crime was the fact that fiber similar to the sewing thread of Appellant’s pants was later found on the dress the victim had been wearing. The time of the victim’s death was also estimated to have been between 9:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon, a time during which Appellant admitted to having been at the house.

On September 21, 1989, while executing a search warrant at Thomas Hawkins’s home in Philadelphia on an unrelated matter, the police observed detective magazines in plain view in Appellant’s bedroom. Several of the magazine articles involving murders of women were highlighted; some had pages folded, and others were just marked. These magazines were introduced at Appellant’s trial. Two inmates who were incarcerated with Thomas Hawkins testified at trial that Appellant had made incriminating statements to them. Finally the circumstances of the victim’s death were compared at trial with those of the murder for which Appellant pled guilty in 1981, revealing some similarities.

On August 14, 1990, the jury found Thomas Hawkins guilty of first degree murder. Later that same day, after the penalty phase of the trial, the jury determined that Appellant’s sentence should be death. The jury determined that one mitigating circumstance the general “demeanor” of Appellant “in everyday *127 life,” was outweighed by one aggravating circumstance the prior murder conviction.

https://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/supreme-court/1993/534-pa-123-1.html