PITTSBURGH – In lieu of a halted intervention from the Allegheny County District Attorney’s Office and related discovery issues, a federal judge has temporarily paused a malicious prosecution suit from one of two men who was accused of murdering six people and an unborn child in a mass shooting in Wilkinsburg in 2016.
Cheron Shelton first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Feb. 11 versus Allegheny County, its Police Superintendent Coleman McDonough, its Police Homicide Command Officer Scott Scherer, its Police Homicide Dets. Stephen Hitchings, Todd Dolfi, Thomas Foley, Patrick Miller (Deceased), Patrick Kinavey and Pittsburgh Police Det. Andrew Miller.
According to county police authorities, Shelton and another man named Robert Thomas used an assault rifle to open fire on guests of a backyard barbeque cookout on March 9, 2016, at a residence on Franklin Avenue in Wilkinsburg.
As a result of the shooting, five people and an unborn child died at the scene, while another man who was paralyzed from his wounds died in 2020.
“Plaintiff was arrested on March 25, 2016 as pretext for the defendants’ efforts to attempt to coerce and manufacture a claim against plaintiff Shelton related to his involvement in the Wilkinsburg Massacre. Despite having no physical evidence, eyewitness testimony, or DNA evidence linking plaintiff to the events of the Wilkinsburg Massacre, plaintiff was incarcerated for over four years, pending investigation and prosecution of the Wilkinsburg Massacre,” the suit said.
After a jury trial with three days of deliberation, Shelton was found not guilty of all the counts against him on Feb. 14, 2020.
Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Edward J. Borkowski threw out the prosecution against Thomas only hours before opening statements were scheduled to be made, since prosecutors explained they would not call a jailhouse witness against him, and therefore, could not prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Meanwhile, Shelton claimed that the defendant officers committed perjury in an attempt to place blame for the crime on him, used false information given by confidential informants of dubious quality and withheld exculpatory evidence which may have aided his case.
“The charges brought against Mr. Shelton were based largely on unsupported and unreliable information provided by jailhouse informants, and information manufactured by confidential informants coerced by law enforcement and the district attorney in exchange for immunity related to other crimes,” the suit said.
While awaiting trial on capital crimes that carried the death penalty, Shelton was incarcerated for four years and allegedly deprived of his constitutional rights.
At the present time, Shelton is serving an eight-year federal prison term for possession of a stolen gun – as Thomas is currently incarcerated at the Allegheny County Jail on domestic violence charges, including unlawful restraint, strangulation and kidnapping.
UPDATE
After an amended complaint was filed removing McDonough and Miller as defendants, the Allegheny County District Attorney’s Office filed a motion to intervene in the case on June 13 – arguing that the County itself does not have authority or control over policies of the DA’s Office, and that addressing this ambiguity was crucial in future proceedings.
“Pursuant to the Allegheny County Home Rule Charter and the Allegheny County Code of Ordinances, the DA is an Independently Elected Official who retains all responsibilities and authority under the Commonwealth Attorneys Act and the Second Class County Code. Allegheny County has no lawful ability to constrain any of the DA’s law enforcement or policy making authority, and cannot engage in litigation, control litigation or settle litigation involving the DA or the DA’s Office without the DA’s consent and cannot hire, supervise or control any employees of the DA’s Office,” the intervenor motion read, in part.
“It is the position of the DA movants that the amended complaint must either be again amended to address the aforementioned ambiguities, or the DA movants must be permitted to intervene in this matter to protect their interests.”
However, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge Cathy Bissoon denied the intervenor motion through an order issued on June 14.
“Pending a resolution of the issues addressed in the motions, all defendants’ obligations to answer or otherwise respond to the amended complaints are held in abeyance, and will be established by future order of Court. With respect to the motions for intervention, the issues raised therein seem capable of resolution through communication and cooperation of counsel. Consistent with the spirit and intent of the meet-and-confer order…counsel for all interested parties are directed to meet and confer by video, collectively, to discuss how the issue(s) may be resolved. The Court will entertain any reasonable, agreed-upon proposal (whether as to the substance of the DA’s positions, or, if substantive agreement cannot be reached, how best, procedurally, to proceed),” Bissoon said.
“Although the Court will not set deadlines regarding the above, it expects that efforts will proceed with reasonable haste. Should any party become dissatisfied regarding timeliness, they may file a motion. Finally, during the pendency of the course described above, the case is administratively closed. Administrative closure is a docket control device used by the Court for statistical purposes, and it does not prejudice the substantive rights of the parties. Upon the next filing by any party, the case will be reopened.”
For counts of malicious prosecution, due process violations, civil rights conspiracy, failure to intervene, supervisor liability, a Monell claim and state law claims of malicious prosecution and abuse of process, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages and punitive damages in amounts to be determined at trial, a trial by jury, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and recovery of plaintiff’s costs including reasonable attorney’s fees and any and all other relief for which the plaintiff may be entitled.
The plaintiff is represented by Max Petrunya of Max Petrunya, P.C. and Paul R. Jubas of Paul Jubas Law, both in Pittsburgh.
The defendants are represented by Dennis R. Biondo Jr. and Shelley K. Rohrer of the Allegheny County Law Department, also in Pittsburgh.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:22-cv-00266
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com