A three-judge panel from the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled
that convicted cop-killer Timothy Williams shouldn’t get a new
trial based on another’s alleged admission to the crime.
A memorandum and order was filed Monday in the state Superior
Court which affirmed a Post Conviction Relief Act ruling that
admissions made by Becky Lucrezi-Olson to killing Kane Borough
Police Officer Steve Jerman were not enough to grant Williams a new
trial.
“We agree with the PCRA court that both Lucrezi’s statements and
the testimony of those to whom she spoke, constitute inadmissible
hearsay and are not allowable as after-discovered evidence,” the
Superior Court ruled, according to the memorandum.
Williams’ attorney, Sam Stretton from West Chester, asserted
that Clarion County Judge Charles Alexander was wrong when he
denied the PCRA motion.
Alexander denied the PCRA motion because Lucrezi’s statements
could only be introduced at a new trial for the purpose of
impeaching her.
“When such evidence is not admissible as substantive evidence,
it can not be the basis of a new trial,” Alexander said.
Stretton had filed a PCRA motion and amendments, naming several
people who claimed they heard Lucrezi-Olson admit she shot Jerman
and that Williams had not. Some later recanted their statements and
two were found guilty of perjury last year.
At trial, Lucrezi-Olson testified that she and Matt Seeley were
having sex in the back seat of the car when the shooting
occurred.
Williams, who was critically injured in the shoot out in
February 1999, was found guilty of third-degree murder in November
1999. He is currently serving a sentence of 22 to 47 years in state
prison.
Alexander found during the PCRA hearings that while it was not
“crystal clear” who shot the fatal shot, both Lucrezi and Seeley
testified it was neither of them. Also, since Jerman was an expert
marksman and returned fire only at Williams in the front seat, it
gave credence to what the jury from Mifflin County found.
The Superior Court agreed with Alexander’s ruling that
Lucrezi-Olson’s “purported statements were inadmissible as an
exception to the hearsay rule.”
Her “statements likewise were inadmissible hearsay because they
did not satisfy the requirements for the ‘inconsistent statement of
witness’ hearsay exception … clearly, her statements were not given
under oath, subject to the penalty of perjury.”
If a new trial was held, those statements would be used to
impeach Lucrezi-Olson’s trial testimony or show her innocence –
they cannot be termed “after-discovered,” the court said.
While the memorandum did mention the perjury convictions of
Marian Kay Nersinger and Michelle Nelson, it did not address the
Commonwealth’s claim that its petition to open the record to
include the perjury convictions was wrongly denied.
In the end, McKean County District Attorney John Pavlock was
pleased with the outcome.
“Very early in this case, the Commonwealth asserted that the
defendant could not legally be entitled to a new trial based on the
claims that he was asserting,” Pavlock said. “We (the Commonwealth)
are very pleased that the Superior Court, in a straight-forward and
concise manner, accepted this argument.”
Stretton, on the other hand, was “disappointed” the court didn’t
rule in his favor.
In particular, he noticed that the court didn’t mention that
Alexander stated that he thought a new trial would result in
Williams being acquitted.
“They decided on pure evidentiary issues,” he said. “They
ignored I had other witnesses, ignored my interest in justice
argument.”
Stretton said he will now petition the entire Superior Court to
reconsider. If that fails, he is prepared to petition the state
Supreme Court.
“I’ve gone this far. There’s injustice here. I don’t know what
happened that night. Williams unfortunately doesn’t remember,”
Stretton said. “It’s odd that someone’s bragging so much.”
