Pennsylvania man convicted of murder using controversial informants' testimony is denied new trial
A Pennsylvania appeals court is denying a new trial for a man who has served 43 years in prison for a murder he insists he didn't commit
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.A Pennsylvania man who has served 43 years of a life sentence for murder based on the shifting stories of four jailhouse informants has lost another appeal for a new trial.
A three-judge Superior Court panel last week turned down Steve Szarewicz's request. The 66-year-old has maintained his innocence for decades and based his latest appeal on two arguments: First, that one of the witnesses against him recanted to a private investigator in 2016; and second, that testimony by another accuser in an unrelated murder case had what the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals called “problematic inconsistencies."
Szarewicz was convicted of the 1981 shooting death of Billy Merriwether in a rural area of Allegheny County. The jailhouse informants all testified that Szarewicz confessed to them, but three of them recanted at one time or another. Another inmate testified that the fourth witness against Szarewicz fabricated his story to settle a score.
There were no fingerprints, no eyewitness testimony and no DNA evidence linking Szarewicz to the scene of the murder, and during deliberations jurors expressed qualms to the judge about the lack of physical evidence.
In the latest ruling, the Superior Court judges said there's a well-established rule that without a “clear abuse of discretion,” appeals courts can't grant a new trial solely on the basis of recantations by prosecution witnesses.
Szarewicz, currently acting as his own attorney, said in an email sent from inside the State Correctional Institution-Houtzdale on Thursday that he plans to appeal the latest adverse decision to the state Supreme Court.
“I am batting 1000 in the wrong direction. Story of my life,” he wrote.
Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen Zappala's office declined to comment.
The facts Szarewicz offered about the credibility of the jailhouse informants were a long shot as the basis for an appeal, according to Bruce Antkowiak, a law professor at Saint Vincent College in Latrobe.
“Anytime a recanted statement is offered, the trial court has to make a credibility determination and that determination is seldom overturned on appeal,” Antkowiak wrote in an email.
In addition to seeking a new trial, Szarewicz also argued that the trial judge erred in how he instructed jurors about a defendant's intent to kill and that the error meant his first-degree murder conviction should be modified to third-degree murder. Such a decision would have meant Szarewicz could have been resentenced to 10 to 20 years rather than life.
The appeals court said Szarewicz was free to return to county court and seek to argue that question.