STORY: "Objections filed to Pennsylvania Supreme Court," by reporter Kay Stephens, published by The Altoona Mirror on June 5, 2018.
GIST: "Defense attorneys have asked the state
Supreme Court to hear their objections to the use of bite mark evidence
in Blair County’s pending murder retrial of Paul Aaron Ross. A petition outlining the reasons
for the request was filed Friday with the state’s highest court, two
weeks after the state Superior Court declined to provide pre-trial
guidance on the issue. If the Supreme Court grants the petition, the retrial
granted seven years ago will likely remain on hold. If the petition gets
dismissed, then Ross will be another step closer to retrial in county
court. Ross, now 45, is incarcerated at the State Correctional
Institution at Mahanoy. He was convicted and remains accused in the 2004
death of Tina S. Miller, a 26-year-old Hollidaysburg woman whose body was found
partially submerged near a boat launch at Canoe Creek State Park. Her
mouth and wrists were bound with duct tape. She died of strangulation
and drowning, based on a coroner’s ruling. Although a jury convicted Ross of first-degree murder in
2005, a state Superior Court panel decided in 2011 that Ross should have
a new trial because his attorney, Thomas M. Dickey, lacked sufficient
time to prepare an adequate defense. Since then, Ross’ retrial has been
on hold because of pre-trial issues, including ones that have raised
questions about the use of bite-mark evidence in criminal court
proceedings. In Ross’ first trial, a bite mark found on Miller’s body was deemed to be “consistent” with Ross’ bite, although not conclusory. In his petition with the Supreme Court, Dickey pointed out
that the defense has submitted evidence, showing that because human skin
is an elastic, ever-changing and unpredictable medium, it cannot
adequately record “whatever distinctiveness may be apparent in the biting surfaces of teeth.”
District Attorney Richard Consiglio has countered that bite
mark evidence, such as was used in the first trial and should be used in
the retrial, remains a valid means of identifying who could have made
the mark. In 2017, Blair County Judge Jolene G. Kopriva rendered two
rulings, both permitting the use of bite-mark evidence in the retrial.
In the second ruling, however, Kopriva recognized the matter as a likely
appeal issue, so she permitted Dickey to take the matter to the
Superior Court, which declined to act. In the petition pending before the Supreme Court, Dickey
again made the argument that Kopriva’s rulings must be addressed,
especially in a capital case where Ross, if convicted, could be
sentenced to death. He said they also need to be evaluated in addressing
the validity of bite marks as trial evidence. The crucial questions in this case “sit
not only at the heart of a capital matter, but at the core of the
public’s interest in just and fair proceedings that reach just and fair
outcomes,” Dickey’s petition states."
The entire story can be found at:
http://www.altoonamirror.com/news/local-news/2018/06/objections-filed-to-pennsylvania-supreme-court/
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the
Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my
previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put
considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith
and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic
pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses
on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please
send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest
to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy;
Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.
