Ferrante Trial Continues

“I’m not so sure that they’ve proven this case,” said attorney Steve Townsend, who is not involved in Ferrante’s trial and is providing legal analysis for WTAE. “This is the sort of case where everyone feels like he did it, but can the commonwealth prove it? And do I think they’ve done enough in this case? That’s a tough call. It really is. I think the defense has an uphill battle coming for them next week, but I’m not sure right now that the jury is convinced.”

Print

Cyanide Poisoning Trial Day 7: Testimony includes husband-wife email, medical analysis

Dr. Robert Ferrante charged with homicide, accused of poisoning Dr. Autumn Klein; Follow #FerranteTrial on Twitter for updates
PITTSBURGH —A man with whom the prosecution says Dr. Robert Ferrante suspected his wife was cheating on him was called as a witness Friday in the seventh day of Ferrante’s homicide trial.

Also on Friday, an email was read in court about a trip that Ferrante’s wife, Dr. Autumn Klein, was scheduled to take.

VIDEO: Watch Marcie Cipriani’s report

In the email, which Ferrante sent to Klein on April 16, 2013 — the day before prosecutors claim he poisoned his wife — he wrote, “You seem to be in such a great mood up until last evening.” It went on to say, “I am obviously missing something here; it seems obvious to me now that you want to go to Boston alone.”

He told her he was sorry for inviting her parents to town and for suggesting the two of them get away together. The email went on to say, “My exuberance of going to Boston together and also having your mom celebrate Mother’s Day with us was perhaps too much. You know me. I think of the fun and not the work behind it.”

Prosecutors pointed out that “Boston” referred to a trip Klein was scheduled to make in May to visit her colleague, Dr. Thomas McElrath, who took the witness stand Friday morning.

Prosecutors say Ferrante was jealous of McElrath and did Internet searches on him.

McElrath told the jurors he and Klein attended a conference together a few months before she died, and that they had been colleagues who worked together for about eight years.

He told the jury he invited Klein and her husband to stay with him at his home, then told defense attorneys that he had never met Ferrante.

Prosecutors then called Jennifer Janssen, assistant chief toxicologist with the Allegheny County Medical Examiner’s Office, who discussed the blood samples that were taken after Klein was admitted to a hospital.

Janssen testified that Klein’s blood tested positive for cyanide and that the ME’s office was not aware of the problems NMS Labs had until days later.

She went on to explain that because of a time lapse from when the blood was drawn to the knowledge of problems with the lab, the decision was made to not send the blood to the Mayo Clinic — a move that the defense says should have been made to get an accurate reading.

Dr. Todd Luckasevic, who conducted Klein’s autopsy, testified that his examination and information from Quest Diagnostics led him to conclude that “Dr. Autumn Marie Klein died as a result of cyanide poisoning” and that her death was a homicide.

Defense attorney Bill Difenderfer aggressively questioned Luckasevic about that on cross-examination, asking, “There are a number of ways human beings can get cyanide in their system, correct?” The doctor agreed. Then Difenderfer asked, “It all looks the same, correct?” The witness agreed once again. Then the defense questioned how cyanide in Klein’s system means that she was murdered, adding, “You don’t know how it was put there, right?” The doctor replied, “Right.”

Marla Priestley, a fingerprint expert for the ME’s Office, testified that Ferrante’s print was on a bottle of cyanide seized from his lab.

When the trial resumes Monday morning, the prosecution will call its final expert witness, who was unable to attend court Friday.

“I’m not so sure that they’ve proven this case,” said attorney Steve Townsend, who is not involved in Ferrante’s trial and is providing legal analysis for WTAE. “This is the sort of case where everyone feels like he did it, but can the commonwealth prove it? And do I think they’ve done enough in this case? That’s a tough call. It really is. I think the defense has an uphill battle coming for them next week, but I’m not sure right now that the jury is convinced.”

Townsend said the Ferrante case has been full of testimony that may be tough for the jury to follow.

“I’m not sure a lot of it they’re comprehending,” he said. “I’m not sure a lot of it I’m comprehending, with the medical and technical jargon that’s going on in there, because I don’t think either side is doing a very good job of explaining it to the jury. What I do believe they’ll come away with is the emotional testimony and the medical examiner testimony, especially since the commonwealth’s witness today saying the cause of death is consistent with cyanide.”

Allegheny County DA

The Allegheny County District Attorney’s office released the follow emails and fingerprint images from those entered in evidence today’s court proceedings against Dr. Robert Ferrante.
Read more: http://www.wtae.com/news/cyanide-poisoning-trial-day-7-begins-with-stunning-new-testimony/29456802#ixzz3IfTGlrxt

 

Local Doctor is Not Guilty – Prescription Drug Conspiracy

Doctor found not guilty of illegally prescribing medication

PIlls

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

 

A doctor who was charged with illegally prescribing medication to a staff member out of an East Liberty women’s clinic was found not guilty on all counts Wednesday.

John P. Barrett, 42, of Mt. Lebanon was charged in March with three counts, including selling a controlled substance, illegally dispensing and illegally administering a controlled substance.

According to the criminal complaint, the Allegheny Women’s Center, at 121 N. Highland Ave., which has since closed, was receiving large quantities of Diethylpropion, an obesity medication. There were approximately 20,000 pills unaccounted for over a four-year period from the clinic.

Investigators said they found the medicine was being used by Mark Wagner, a lab tech, who took it to treat anxiety and depression.

But prosecutors said Mr. Wagner was not a patient of Dr. Barrett, the clinic’s director, or Dr. Alton Lawson, and that the man’s psychiatrist was not aware he was taking the medication.

In July, Dr. Lawson pleaded guilty to two count of sale of a controlled substance and entered the court’s Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition program, which will clear his record after nine month of successful probation.

Mr. Wagner pleaded guilty in May to five misdemeanor counts and was sentenced to five years probation. He told investigators that he used the drug but also sold it to a friend to help her lose weight.

Dr. Barrett had a nonjury trial before Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Anthony M. Mariani on Wednesday.

Defense attorney Steven C. Townsend called no witnesses, but argued to the court that even though his client’s DEA number was used to order medications for the clinic, that did not mean he was aware Mr. Wagner was using it, abusing it or not an actual patient of Dr. Lawson.

The Civil Case is Still Alive After Ford Found Not Guilty

DA’s decision on retrial of man shot by police overshadows civil lawsuit

Zappala 

Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr. will play a key role in whether Leon Ford gets a chance at millions of dollars from a civil lawsuit against Pittsburgh before a federal jury even hears the facts of the case, legal experts said on Tuesday.

An Allegheny County jury on Monday acquitted Ford, 21, of Shaler of aggravated assault and deadlocked on five other counts related to a November 2012 traffic stop in Highland Park. He remains charged with recklessly endangering another person, resisting arrest and escape.

Zappala has until Sept. 26 to tell Common Pleas Judge Donald E. Machen whether his office will retry Ford on those charges.

“If the DA decides not to pursue the charges, it’s a win for the defense,” Downtown lawyer Steven Townsend said. “The city might as well open its checkbook.”

If Zappala pursues and Ford is convicted of any of the remaining charges, that could be “detrimental” to the civil case, Townsend said, because “it makes the officers’ actions justified.”

Ford, who is black, was paralyzed on Nov. 11, 2012, when Pittsburgh police Officer David Derbish shot him five times in what the officer said was self-defense. Ford’s attorneys said the three white officers unnecessarily escalated the situation.

Ford will retain at least some of his claims in his federal lawsuit against the city regardless of whether prosecutors pursue the remaining charges against him, including that the officers used excessive force and unlawfully stopped him, Downtown attorney Joel Sansone said.

Ford’s civil case is “very strong,” Sansone said.

Exactly how much a jury could award Ford remains a guess. Local lawyers estimated a seven-figure pay day.

A gag order that remains in the criminal case prevented Ford’s civil lawyer, Monte Rabner, from commenting. Howard McQuillan, president of the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 1, city public safety spokeswoman Sonya Toler and Mike Manko, a spokesman for the district attorney, all declined to comment.

Councilman Ricky Burgess said Ford’s case highlighted the city’s racial divide and a lack of diversity among the rank-and-file officers. It also furthered a “false narrative” that has caused a distrust between the community and police, which leaders are working to mend, Burgess said.

Court settlements and judgments are paid out of the city’s general fund. The city sets aside $1.6 million a year for that, said Tim McNulty, spokesman for Mayor Bill Peduto.

Tim Stevens, chairman of the Black Political Empowerment Project, implored Zappala to dismiss the remaining charges against Ford. “We feel that the fact that Mr. Ford will never walk again is unto itself reason enough to not refile the charges in this unfortunate incident,” he said.

He added that it “will also provide an opportunity for some level of healing within our African-American communities between the community and the police.”

Adam Brandolph is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412- 391-0927 or abrandolph@tribweb.com.

Security Guard, John Carter – Found “Not Guilty”

Guard, John Carter, not guilty in Pittsburgh shooting

Three-day trial ends in mixed views about verdict
By Paula Reed Ward / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

A Verona se­cu­rity guard charged with ag­gra­vated as­sault af­ter shoot­ing a man ac­cused of steal­ing from a de­liv­ery truck in Home­wood was found not guilty Wed­nes­day.

John Carter, 54, tes­ti­fied on his own be­half dur­ing the three-day trial be­fore Com­mon Pleas Judge Joseph K. Wil­liams III.

The jury only de­lib­er­ated about 30 min­utes be­fore re­turn­ing its ver­dict.

De­fense at­tor­ney Steven Townsend said his cli­ent should never have been charged.

“I have no idea why they pur­sued a case like this,” he said. “It was clear from state­ments, wit­ness ac­counts and the video — John Carter was de­fend­ing him­self af­ter be­ing robbed.”

But Dis­trict At­tor­ney Ste­phen A. Zap­pala Jr. said if the same cir­cum­stances were pre­sented to him again, charges would again be filed.

Mr. Carter was charged with shoot­ing Edward Brown Jr. on Oct. 2 as he ran away.

Ac­cord­ing to Pitts­burgh po­lice, Brown took a jit­ney to Baker’s Dairy on Ham­il­ton Avenue that day, know­ing a truck for the Tri­an­gle Tobacco & Candy Co. reg­u­larly made de­liv­er­ies.

Brown walked to the back of the truck, tugged on a bun­gee cord at­tached to a con­tainer hold­ing money, grabbed more than $1,100 and ran.

Mr. Carter, who worked on the truck, told po­lice when he was first ques­tioned that he chased Brown, heard some­one scream that there was an­other per­son and then saw Brown stop and reach to­ward his waist­band. That’s when he fired, he said, to de­fend him­self.

But pros­e­cu­tors said a video taken from a Port Au­thor­ity bus did not show Brown “stop­ping and turn­ing around as Mr. Carter re­ported.”

“I think he was de­fend­ing his em­ploy­ment,” Mr. Zap­pala said. “We’re a so­ci­ety of laws, and you can’t shoot some­body who tries to steal from you.”

But Mr. Townsend dis­agreed.

“John Carter’s ac­tions were cer­tainly jus­ti­fied.”

He said his cli­ent is look­ing for­ward to re­gain­ing his per­mit to carry a fire­arm, as well as get­ting his job back as a se­cu­rity guard.

Brown pleaded guilty to theft in May be­fore Judge An­thony M. Mar­i­ani and was sen­tenced to serve two years’ pro­ba­tion and pay res­ti­tu­tion.
Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2014/08/20/Verona-security-guard-not-guilty-aggravated-assault-Homewood/stories/201408200169#ixzz3B1YqKH8y

 

WHY IS THE SUSPECT SHOT IN THE BACK?

Finally, Hard Data on How a Fast the Suspct Can Be in the 11 Difference Shooting Scenarios

By: Bill Lewinski, Ph.D.

Shot in the Back

We have always known that generally action beats reaction.  And, we’ve been able to demonstrate this in a variety of civilian and law enforcement situations.  Since the invention of the shot timer, we’ve known how quickly officers can react in shooting situations.  Now, for the first time, we have accurate, sophisticated measurements on how quickly the suspect in the street can actually do what they do in 11 different kinds of shooting scenarios.  Some of you may find the results depressing, for this research proves that in the street, action really does beat reaction.  For others, it will provide a clear explanation for problems, such as why so many suspects get shot in the back.  Readers should find the results of this study truly amazing – the implications for law enforcement training are profound.

Security Guard Appears In Court After Shooting Robbery Suspect

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/video?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=9466644

 

(Photo Courtesy: City of Pittsburgh Bureau of Police)

(Photo Courtesy: City of Pittsburgh Bureau of Police)

Ross GuidottiReporting Ross Guidotti

PITTSBURGH (KDKA) – An armed security guard accused of shooting a robbery suspect in Homewood earlier this month was in court for a preliminary hearing today.

John Carter, 53, of Verona man is charged with aggravated assault after shooting a man, who allegedly robbed a delivery truck in Homewood.

“He believes and I believe and I think everyone will believe in the end, that he did the right thing yet he’s in the position where he’s in the box trying to prove his innocence,” defense attorney Steve Townsend said.

On Oct.2, Edward Brown allegedly grabbed a money bag out of a delivery truck at Triangle Candy and Tobacco.

Carter, working for Triangle as a guard, gave chase. He opened fire on Brown, striking the 32-year-old in the abdomen.

“This area where this took place in Homewood, it’s like Afghanistan, it’s Bosnia. Shootings there are almost a daily occurrence,” Townsend said. “Someone’s threatening you with bodily force and you’re in fear of serious bodily injury, you have to do what you have to do to protect yourself and that’s what happened.”

Carter, a 16-year veteran and qualified to carry a firearm, told police Brown turned around and reached for his waist.

Carter thought he had a gun and fired. However, there was no gun.

Carter told police a bystander yelled that Brown had a gun, but videotape showed Brown, who would be charged with robbery, never turned around and never had a gun. Brown survived his injuries.

“I believe that he’s innocent. I don’t believe that he committed a crime and I believe that that will come out in the end. Unfortunately, he’s left in the situation where he’s probably going to have to take this case to trial,” Townsend said.

Carter remains free on bond and continues to work as an armed security guard.

 

NOT GUILTY – Sex Assault

BEAVER — It took a Beaver County jury less than two hours Friday to find a man not guilty on charges he sexually assaulted a 3-year-old New Brighton girl six years ago.

Thomas H. Javens II, 33, whose last known address was 1621 Sampson St., Conway, was accused of inappropriately touching the girl, now 9, in her home. He was charged with aggravated indecent assault and indecent assault by New Brighton Area police in May 2012 after a forensic interviewer concluded the girl was making what they call a “positive disclosure” of sexual abuse, according to the police report.

After the interviewer’s ruling, police set up a telephone call using the mother to obtain a confession from Javens. His defense attorney, Steven Townshend, however, argued during this week’s trial that the apology Javens gave on the recording was for a recent argument involving the child, not past sexual contact.

Townshend argued it was an older child in the home who touched the girl, not Javens, and her mother was taking advantage of the situation to harm Javens, who she was fighting with over a custody issue involving another child.

Assistant District Attorney Frank Martocci argued the girl has always been consistent in her story about what happened and that Javens inappropriately touched her.

He also argued that the apology telephone call clearly was about the 2007 incident, not the more recent argument.

After the verdict was read, though, Martocci said, “I respect the jury’s decision.”

Inmate Jeffrey Cristina hopes juvenile lifer ruling will set him free

Convicted at 17, he has hearing set on his sentencing as a juvenile
April 7, 2013 12:04 am

Photo provided by Jeffrey Cristina’s niece
Jeffrey Cristina, who was found guilty of second-degree murder in 1976, in a recent photo.
Click image to enlarge

Share with others:

0
inShare

Print Email Read Later
By Paula Reed Ward / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

On June 29, 1976, Jeffrey Cristina was found guilty of second-degree murder and robbery.

He was 17 years old and faced a mandatory prison term of life without parole — even though the jury did not believe he killed the victim.

Since that time, Cristina, now 54, has remained incarcerated within the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections.

He has not received a single misconduct write-up while in prison, and has taken advantage of just about every educational opportunity presented to him.

“Most of these kids that went in for life had no incentive to do anything because they figured they’d never get out,” said Cristina’s defense attorney, Steve Townsend. “What he’s done with his life for the last 37 years is pretty decent.

PG graphic: Juvenile lifers
(Click image for larger version)

“He’s taken every advantage he’s had inside to be rehabilitated. The system actually worked for him.”

It is that, Mr. Townsend said, that he thinks gives his client a good chance of someday getting out.

This week, Cristina will become the first person in Allegheny County to be resentenced based on last year’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in Miller v. Alabama, which made mandatory life without parole for juveniles unconstitutional.

According to the Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth, there are 2,570 people serving life without parole who were convicted as juveniles across the United States. More than 25 percent are serving that sentence for felony murder (when a person is killed during the commission of another felony, such as robbery, for example) or accomplice liability, the organization says.

Pennsylvania has more juvenile lifers than any other state.

As of April 1, according to the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, there were 462 such offenders imprisoned across the state.

Of those, 266 were convicted of first-degree murder — a premeditated killing. Another 157 were convicted of second-degree murder — or felony murder. A person can be convicted even if he or she did not actually commit the killing, but participated in the underlying crime.

Philadelphia has the largest number of juvenile lifers at 265, while Allegheny County has the second largest — 48.

Attorneys on both sides of the issue are awaiting a decision from the state Supreme Court in Pennsylvania v. Cunningham, which will determine if the Miller decision applies retroactively.

Those advocates arguing in favor of retroactivity say that juveniles cannot be held to the same societal standard as adults — that they are not emotionally mature, and that because of that, they fail to recognize the consequences of their actions.

But those on the opposite side say that making Miller retroactive, and applying it to defendants convicted years ago, is legally unsound and a violation of due process for the victims.

Further, they say, such a change in the law is unnecessary, since sentencing relief for those who have turned their lives around in prison already exists through clemency.

According to the Pennsylvania Board of Pardons, 40 people have been granted clemency on first- or second-degree murder convictions since 1979.

A hearing Friday

Jeffrey Cristina was uprooted from his home in Brookline after his parents divorced in the mid-1970s and he moved with his mother to Lawrenceville.

Although he had never been in trouble before, he fell in with the wrong crowd, said his niece, Heather Taylor.

On Dec. 10, 1975, Frank Slazinski, an 82-year-old retired steelworker, had just returned to his Butler Street apartment after being released from the hospital.

About 9 that night, officers found his door open, and Slazinski lying inside, badly beaten.

He died four days later.

During the investigation into Slazinski’s death, Cristina and others implicated gave varying statements to police. At trial, Cristina testified he attempted to rob the man but fled before the victim was beaten.

Still, he was found guilty of second-degree murder.

The Board of Pardons unanimously recommended Cristina for clemency in 1993, saying he had compiled a “stunning record,” although his bid was rejected.

After seemingly exhausting all of his appeals, Cristina filed a petition seeking collateral relief in August, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Miller.

Over the objections of the Allegheny County district attorney’s office, Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Anthony M. Mariani agreed to hear it, and the matter is scheduled for court on Friday.

At the hearing, Mr. Townsend will ask the judge to resentence his client, taking into consideration the decision that made mandatory life without parole for juveniles unconstitutional.

The defense attorney would love for his client to be sentenced to time served, which would allow for his immediate release, but a decision last month by the state Supreme Court could make that argument difficult.

The court, in a decision known as Batts, found that the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Miller requires sentencing judges in Pennsylvania to set a minimum prison term for defendants convicted of first- or second-degree murder. It also requires those same judges keep the mandatory maximum sentence at life in prison.

That means that instead of possibly being released with time served, those defendants’ only hope to get out will be through the parole process.

The Batts decision, however, applies only to what amounts to a handful of cases in Pennsylvania that are currently on direct appeal, said Allegheny County chief deputy district attorney Dan Fitzsimmons.

The rest of the state’s juvenile lifers — about 450 — will have to wait for another case pending before the state Supreme Court, Pennsylvania v. Cunningham, to be decided.

That case, stemming from a second-degree murder conviction in Philadelphia, will determine if the Miller decision can be applied retroactively in Pennsylvania.

Mr. Townsend doesn’t see how the court could not make Miller retroactive.

“If [Miller] means it’s cruel and unusual punishment now, then it was cruel and unusual punishment in 1976,” he said. “The same standard has to apply.”

But Hugh Burns, the chief of the appellate unit in Philadelphia who argued the Cunningham case, disagrees.

His argument revolves around whether the Miller decision is a procedural or substantive change in the law.

According to Mr. Burns, the Miller decision lays out brand new procedures, and under Supreme Court precedent that means it cannot be made retroactive.

In issuing the Miller decision, the U.S. Supreme Court created a new process for the lower courts, requiring the sentencing judge to consider a juvenile’s age, level of maturity, family and home environment, the extent of participation in the crime, the impact of family and peer pressure and the possibility of rehabilitation before handing down punishment.

“This is a case that falls clearly in the procedural realm,” Mr. Burns said.

Further, he said, Miller does not categorically prohibit life without parole for juveniles — and instead only suggests it should be “uncommon.” Therefore, the prosecutor continued, it is not a substantive change in the law.

But Bradley Bridge, who represented Cunningham in the state Supreme Court, argues that because Miller struck down the only statutory sentence available for juveniles charged with second-degree murder — mandatory life without parole — then his client must instead be sentenced to the only constitutional option still available — the lesser included offense of first-degree robbery.

He further claims that juveniles convicted of second-degree murder cannot be classified as the most serious offenders deserving the most severe penalty under Miller.

“In Pennsylvania, second-degree [felony] murder is a legal fiction that allows convictions for murder absent a finding that the defendant killed or had the intent to kill,” Mr. Bridge wrote. “Instead, a felony murder conviction requires only the intent to commit or be an accomplice to the underlying felony.”

Mr. Bridge said Miller must be made retroactive because it created a “watershed rule of criminal procedure and thus calls into question the ‘fundamental fairness and accuracy of the criminal proceeding.’ ”

Sara Jacobson, a law professor at Temple University who participated in a friend-of-the-court brief in the Batts case, said making Miller retroactive will not “open the prison gates to anyone.

“Basically, it opens the parole process,” she said. “That’s what Miller says needs to happen. It talks about a meaningful opportunity for parole.

“It sends a message to the now-adults serving these sentences there’s a possibility the worst thing you did in your life isn’t the sum of who you are.”

Emily Keller, a staff attorney at the Juvenile Law Center, said Miller was another acknowledgment by the U.S. Supreme Court that juveniles should be treated differently.

“You read the social science — that adolescents are impulsive and subject to peer pressure and likely to outgrow it.

“It’s more than just academic research.”

Mr. Townsend agrees.

“At 16, you don’t even know what life’s about,” he said.

Mr. Bridge said that science shows that children don’t think the same way adults do.

“We all know children don’t engage in the same thought process that adults do,” he said. “They’re not just like little adults.”

But Mr. Burns does not buy it.

“Everybody knows that premeditated murder is wrong,” he said. “The line has to be drawn somewhere.”

As for the cases involving second-degree murder, Mr. Burns said that perhaps had those juveniles not participated, the crime would not have happened.

“Maybe I’m draconian, but I think the line should be drawn to try and protect people from being murdered.”

Staying hopeful

Cristina has been able to maintain a positive outlook despite 37 years in prison.

“I follow my faith pretty strongly,” he said. “You’ve got to have hope to keep going.”

The Miller decision renewed that. “It gave juvenile lifers a chance,” he said. “It’s a light at the end of the tunnel we never had before.”

But for the victims of juvenile lifers, Miller had the opposite effect.

Jennifer Bishop-Jenkins, the president of the National Organization for Victims of Juvenile Lifers, said that what Miller did was reopen wounds.

The woman’s 25-year-old pregnant sister and her husband were killed in their suburban Chicago home in 1990.

After Ms. Bishop-Jenkins learned about the possibility of juvenile killers getting relief, she didn’t sleep for four months.

“There’s no such thing as closure or healing,” she said. “You go on as best you can.”

But when a defendant is sentenced to life without parole, she continued, “You do pretty much walk away saying ‘Thank God, that’s over.’ There is a legal finality.”

With the prospect that Miller could be applied retroactively — and possibly allow for the ultimate release of hundreds of convicted murderers — victims’ families are having to relive the past trauma, horror and anger they endured at trial, Ms. Bishop-Jenkins said.

As an advocate for victims’ rights, she said that it does appear that Pennsylvania has overly sentenced juveniles to life without parole, and she believes that is not an appropriate sentence for second-degree murder.

But, she continued, court precedent that could invalidate sentences duly handed down is not the answer.

Instead, Ms. Bishop-Jenkins continued, there is already another option available — clemency.

But for Cristina, a unanimous recommendation for clemency fell upon deaf ears.

Still, in all these years, he has remained hopeful.

Her uncle’s positive attitude has always resounded with Ms. Taylor, who was just an infant when he was first arrested.

“I don’t know how he was able to maintain that being incarcerated for so long — to not lose hope,” she said.

As she grew up, Ms. Taylor and her family visited Cristina every weekend while he was housed at the State Correctional Institution Pittsburgh. They exchanged letters and cards regularly. She continues to visit him often at SCI Somerset, where he is now.

“All I’ve been thinking about is getting out and being with my family,” Cristina said.

He recognizes the vast changes in the world since he was first incarcerated may be a difficult adjustment.

“It scares me, but I’m excited about it, too,” he said. “I have a good support system.”

Paula Reed Ward: pward@post-gazette.com or 412-263-2620.
First Published April 7, 2013 12:00 am

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-city/inmate-jeffrey-cristina-hopes-juvenile-lifer-ruling-will-set-him-free-682392/#ixzz2PnA4E8DJ