The judge who presided over the original trial of Timothy
Williams – the man convicted of killing Kane Borough Police Officer
Steven Jerman -ðhas theorized that Williams would be found not
guilty if he was granted a new trial even though he still believes
Williams to be the shooter.

“… it is my opinion that (Williams’) hypothetical new trial,
with the after-discovered evidence included, would likely end in a
not guilty verdict,” Clarion County Judge Charles Alexander wrote
in a memorandum which accompanied an order denying McKean County
District Attorney John Pavlock’s motion for the guilty verdicts of
Marian Kay Nersinger and Michelle Nelson to be included in part of
the Williams case now before the state Superior Court.

Alexander’s memorandum and order were filed late Friday
afternoon in McKean County Court.

Alexander, pointing out it is hard to predict what a jury will
do, also said that he had thought that Nelson and Nersinger were
going to be acquitted.

Both Nelson and Nersinger were convicted of lying during Post
Conviction Relief Act hearings for Williams; they were found guilty
after a week-long trial in May.

The two women, both of New York state, testified they heard
Becky Lucrezi Olson admit that she fired the fatal shot that killed
Jerman in February 1999 and not Williams. Lucrezi Olson was a
passenger in the car driven by Williams.

Williams was found guilty of third-degree murder in 1999.

However, Alexander returned the case to the Superior Court
without the guilty verdicts.

In his memorandum, Alexander said he would only “prophesize” the
not guilty verdict since Pavlock raised the issue that the
“after-discovered evidence be of such a nature and character that
its admission would be likely to change the outcome of the trial”
-ðthe fourth prong of a four-prong test to determine if a defendant
warrants relief for after-discovered evidence.

Pavlock “is wrong that I ‘… misapplied the standard regarding
the fourth prong …’ He is wrong because I didn’t apply it at
all.”

Alexander said he didn’t apply the fourth prong since he thought
the third prong – “evidence will be used solely for purposes of
impeachment” – is the only one relevant in this case.

“I can see no reason to attempt to prophesize the outcome of a
trial which I was ruling would not take place.”

Because Pavlock made the fourth prong an issue, Alexander said
he felt compelled to address it.

As Alexander wrote, Pavlock contended the “fourth prong is
crucial to the issue now before me because the convictions in the
perjury case are a strong indication that (Williams) … would lose
the second trial if granted one. I disagree.”

“I believe this in spite the fact that it is my belief that
(Williams) fired the fatal shot,” Alexander wrote.

The judge then listed six reasons why Williams would be
exonerated if granted a new trial. They are:

– the jury may consider Lucrezi Olson’s admissions as
substantive evidence even though the trial judge may instruct them
to only consider the admissions for impeachment purposes;

– Williams doesn’t remember the shooting because he was in a
coma after being shot three times by Jerman. “I believe that his
amnesia is authentic;”

-ðLucrezi Olson and Matthew Seeley, the two passengers in the
car, were “poor witnesses at the original trial. If a new trial
would take place, the passenger who stated she fired the fatal shot
(Lucrezi Olson) would be an even poorer witness;”

– the only other person who saw the shooting -ðShawn Ford – “was
a very poor witness and was unable to tell who fired the shot;”

– a second trial would be eight or nine years after the original
one. The time lapse would favor Williams more than the
Commonwealth, Alexander said;

– a second trial could be a “problem for any litigant because of
inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses

“It is my opinion that the Commonwealth, since it has the burden
of proof, and since it had more important witnesses than
(Williams), would be more handicapped by a second trial than
(Williams).”

Alexander noted he denied the immediate motion because he
believed the perjury convictions were irrelevant to the issue
before the Superior Court.

Despite the verdict in the Nersinger/Nelson trial, the judge
still believes that many witnesses heard Lucrezi Olson admit “she
had pulled the trigger.” He also said the charge against Nersinger
impeded the investigation.

“I continue to believe that the perjury charge being filed after
only one of many witnesses had testified had a chilling effect on
the fact-finding process during the post-conviction proceeding,”
Alexander wrote.

He also said he thought the perjury convictions only revealed
that the jury didn’t believe Nersinger and Nelson.

“I don’t agree with the Commonwealth that these convictions have
more significance than this.”

Alexander also cautioned that his belief that Williams would be
found not guilty “is only a prophecy” which was needed in order to
evaluate the fourth prong of the after-discovered evidence
test.

“I have been observing juries as a lawyer and as a judge for
nearly 50 years but I make no claim to be a prophet on any
individual verdict … I would have predicted an acquittal in the two
perjury cases …,” adding he heard much of the same testimony
presented in the perjury trial.

He also said the verdicts in the perjury cases should also not
be considered if the verdicts do not stand.

Defense attorney Sam Stretton from West Chester, attorney for
Williams, Nersinger and Nelson, has argued that Nersinger and
Nelson should get a new trial due to alleged conversations between
jurors and a state trooper as well as former District Attorney
Michele Alfieri testifying that Lucrezi Olson passed a polygraph
test before she was granted immunity.

“Since I was not in the courtroom when the statement was made,
and since I am not the trial judge in the perjury cases, I have no
opinion as to whether or not that statement will cause the verdicts
to be overturned by the trial court or by an appellate court, but I
can not label that issue as frivolous,” Alexander said.

In a hearing last month, private investigator Anthony Marceca
testified that he saw Alfieri celebrate after leaving the courtroom
after testifying about the polygraph test. Alfieri didn’t take the
stand during that hearing.