Convicted cop-killer Timothy Williams has been denied a new
trial by Judge Charles Alexander of Clarion County, who said the
most compelling evidence of Williams’s guilt in the 1999 shooting
of Kane policeman Steve Jerman was that Williams was the only one
Jerman shot back at.

“During the trial I believed that Officer Jerman, by directing
his return fire exclusively at the defendant, actually told us who
shot him, and I continue to believe that is compelling evidence,”
Alexander wrote in his memorandum and order filed Friday in McKean
County Court.

Even though another person has been telling people she shot
Jerman, a Kane Borough police officer, in 1999 instead of Williams,
those alleged admissions cannot be used as grounds for a new trial,
Alexander ruled.

In the ruling, Alexander said he believes “many of the alleged
statements attributed to Becky Lucrezi were in fact made by her,
but I will deny (Williams’s) petition because I find that those
statements could only be introduced at a new trial for the purpose
of impeaching the credibility of Becky Lucrezi …”

When that evidence is not admissible as substantive, “it cannot
be the basis for a new trial,” Alexander ruled.

Lucrezi and Matt Seely were in the backseat of the car Williams
was driving when Jerman pulled them over in Wetmore Township in
February 1999.

Williams was convicted of shooting and killing Jerman. Since his
trial in 1999, several people have come forward claiming to have
heard Lucrezi admit to shooting Jerman.

To date, District Attorney John Pavlock and the Kane-based state
police have charged two of these witnesses with perjury, which also
draws comment from Alexander in his 14-page memorandum and
order.

The judge goes into a lengthy explanation of the “zeal” of both
sides.

“Both the district attorney and the attorney for the defendant
have approached this case with great zeal. Such vehemence on the
part of attorneys is usually admirable and welcomed by the court,
but in this case their zeal has approached fanaticism making the
hearings more difficult for both sides and for the court.”

He adds that he is not criticizing the attorneys, but is
explaining why the case is so difficult.

“The district attorney is faced with a situation where if the
defendant is right, the Commonwealth not only prosecuted and
incarcerated the wrong person but has granted immunity to the
killer.”

Lucrezi was granted immunity for her testimony against Williams
in his murder trial.

Alexander explains that he also understands the vehemence of
defense attorney Sam Stretton, as Williams has “complete amnesia”
about the time of the killing and he and his family believe he is
innocent.

Williams and his family also believe that Lucrezi has since
admitted to shooting Jerman, Alexander wrote.

“Since it would be very difficult for any person to believe that
such a ‘confession’ would be made if it weren’t true, they
therefore believe that the defendant didn’t fire the fatal shot,”
the judge wrote.

Both sides believe they are right, which leads to distrust.

“The defense attorney constantly has believed that the
Commonwealth is being unethical or acting illegally, and the
Commonwealth believes that when someone testifies for the defendant
that that person is necessarily lying and/or that defendant’s
investigator has acted improperly.”

An example of the zeal is that Marian Nersinger was charged with
perjury “before any of the other witnesses testified.” While
Alexander said that Nersinger was “not a good witness,” he referred
to a witness who testified at the original trial as being “no more
unbelievable.”

Meanwhile, the judge says he does believe that Lucrezi has been
telling people she is the one who shot Jerman – not because she
did, but as a “weird type of bragging that she thought would gain
her prestige with her friends.”

“It is hard to imagine how anybody would want someone to think
that they committed murder and believe that that would somehow give
them favorable prestige. When the entire original trial is
reviewed, however, and you consider the strange life that the
defendant, Becky Lucrezi and others were living, I can understand
how she could have the bizarre belief that this crime would
actually make her a fascinating person to her friends,” Alexander
wrote.

Had Pavlock considered that idea prior to a brief filed on Oct.
4, 2005, perhaps “he might not have presumed every witness was
lying,” Alexander wrote. “This assumption on the part of the
Commonwealth made the case difficult.”

While the post-conviction review of the Williams case has been
ongoing for quite some time, Alexander said in Friday’s ruling that
he told both Pavlock and Stretton in July 2004 that he would likely
deny Williams a new trial.

However, he allowed the case to go on for two reasons – one for
the family and one for a possible future change in the law.

The judge explained he felt Williams, his family and friends
“were entitled to have a forum where the question of Becky
Lucrezi’s alleged ‘confessions’ could be aired.” Losing the bid for
a new trial “without having this testimony presented in court
seemed to me to be unfair,” Alexander wrote.

And from a legal standpoint, Alexander referred to a Superior
Court judge’s opinion regarding statements such as Lucrezi’s.
Currently, state law from a state Supreme Court decision holds that
when evidence can be used only for impeachment of a witness, it
cannot be used to grant a defendant relief, such as a new
trial.

The Superior Court judge disagreed, saying that particular rule
was not included in the Supreme Court’s decision.

Alexander stated that should the law change, the case may
warrant another look to determine if a new trial should be
granted.