An appeal by a Greensburg woman serving a life sentence for her role in the 2006 killing of a man on the railroad tracks in Manor has been denied by the state Superior Court.
A three-judge panel ruled there was enough evidence presented during the 2008 trial of Jennifer Vinsek to support her second-degree murder conviction.
Vinsek, 28, was convicted of taking part in the shotgun slaying of William Teck, 25, of Hempfield. In a separate trial, Jason Maple, 28, of Penn Township, was convicted of first-degree murder and also is serving life in prison.
Police said Maple fired one shot into Teck's back as he attempted to flee from his assailant. Maple said he was angry with Teck after Vinsek claimed Teck ransacked her apartment and threatened to rape her. Those claims were unfounded, according to police.
Vinsek was accused of luring Teck and a friend, Patrick Altman, from a diner in Manor to the railroad tracks.
Brothers Dewayne and Nathan Shank, of Adamsburg, along with Ryan Bronowski, of Penn Township, testified against Maple and Vinsek and were allowed to plead guilty to a lesser charge of third-degree murder.
It was the robbery component of the case that resulted in Vinsek's conviction of second-degree murder, defined as a killing that occurs during the commission of another felony.
The prosecution said the plot to kill Teck killed revolved around a plan to steal his belongings.
The court rejected a defense claim that there was no evidence a robbery occurred.
Defense attorney Tim Dawson said Monday he will file another appeal to the state's Supreme Court.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com 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.