ShareThis Page

North Side killer sentenced to life in prison as a teen could go free after 48 years

Megan Guza
| Wednesday, Sept. 6, 2017, 6:03 p.m.

Albert Irby's sister broke into a smile Wednesday morning when he shuffled down the hall of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, shackled and cuffed and led by a sheriff's deputy.

“Hi, baby, how are you?” Carolyn Abram gushed as Irby, 65, was led into Judge Beth Lazzara's courtroom.

Abram has helped care for her brother for the past 48 years — ever since he was arrested for murder as a teen and sentenced to life in prison. Now, she hopes that she'll soon be able to care for him in her home as a free man.

Irby was 17 when he shot and killed North Side shopkeeper Sam Shaheen during an attempted robbery on Sept. 22, 1969. A jury convicted him of first-degree murder, leading to a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole. No one from Shaheen's family spoke during the hearing.

A 2012 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that such sentences for juveniles are unconstitutional. Another ruling last year made that decision retroactive.

Four inmates originally sentenced in Allegheny County were eligible for new sentences under the Supreme Court decision. Irby is the longest-serving of those four.

Lazzara resentenced Irby to 48 years to life in prison with credit for time served. Irby has been in custody since Sept. 24, 1969. He will be eligible for parole Sept. 24.

Assistant District Attorney Ronald Wabby Jr. argued that Irby, who has been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia since being incarcerated, has a history of refusing to take his medication, at which point he can become physically and verbally abusive.

“He has been difficult for the state prison system to control,” Wabby said.

Irby's attorney, Scott Coffey, argued that it has been 12 years since SCI-Greene recorded a refusal by Coffey to take his medication. Coffey said he believes Irby will do whatever he is ordered to do if paroled.

Irby has maintained his innocence since his arrest and on Wednesday alleged that the confession used to convict him was beaten out of him by police.

His answers to Lazzara were noncommittal when she pressed him on whether he would comply with parole guidelines, such as taking medication, attending counseling sessions and living in a mental health facility.

Abram expressed her hope and willingness for her brother to live with her and her husband, John, if he is paroled.

“I take care of my baby,” she said. “In here, out there — it don't matter.”

Lazzara expressed concerns, indicating she feared Irby would refuse his medication and be a risk to himself and others. By Irby's own admission, he does not necessarily believe he needs medication for his mental health issues.

Coffey attributed Irby's sometimes scattered answers to him not being used to being outside prison.

“He hasn't been out in the real world in a very long time — he's been in prison for 48 years. He was nervous about just being in the courtroom,” he said. “If a doctor states that he needs medication, he said he will take medication, and he will comply with whatever he's told to do on parole.”

Megan Guza is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach her at 412-380-8519, or via Twitter @meganguzaTrib.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.