Share This Page

Defense attorneys drop effort to examine program linking Wade DNA to East Liberty homicides

| Friday, March 18, 2016, 5:42 p.m.

Defense attorneys for Allen Wade, who is accused of killing sisters Susan and Sarah Wolfe in their East Liberty home in 2014, are dropping an effort to look deeper at the computer program that tied Wade's DNA to the murder.

Attorneys for Wade, 45, filed an application Thursday to withdraw their appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. That appeal sought to overturn Common Pleas Judge Edward Borkowski's denial of the source code for TrueAllele, a computer program used by Oakland-based Cybergenetics to say it was likely Wade contributed to a mix of DNA found on sweatpants recovered from a trash can near Sarah Wolfe's car, a hat found at the Wolfes' house after an earlier burglary, and material under the nails of Susan Wolfe.

The attorneys, public defenders Lisa Middleman, Lisa Phillips, Aaron Sontz and Scott Rudolf, could not be reached for comment.

Prosecutors paid to use the TrueAllele analysis when the Allegheny County Medical Examiner's crime lab could not definitively say that some of the DNA on those items came from Wade.

A similar appeal for the program's source code, so defense attorneys can more thoroughly question expert Dr. Mark Perlin, was filed in another death-penalty homicide case against Michael Robinson of Duquesne. Common Pleas Judge Jill Rangos had denied Robinson's attorneys access to the code on the grounds that it could expose Cybergenetics' trade secrets.

The application does not say why Wade's attorneys are dropping their appeal, for which Borkowski had delayed the trial originally scheduled to start early this month. District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala is seeking the death penalty.

Public Defender Elliot Howsie said the issue could still be raised in the event Wade is convicted.

“Since the Superior Court has failed to act after thirty days, the defendant, in consultation with his defense team, felt that delaying the trial any further would serve no benefit,” he said. “Any further delay would result in moving the case to start in September, if not later.”

Hints of the defense strategy may be found in two other filings this week related to the case: a motion to introduce alibi testimony from his girlfriend, LaShaun Rue, that Wade was in his home from 8 p.m. Feb. 6 until 12:45 a.m. Feb. 7; and a motion to suppress a dark blue knit cap found at the Wolfes' house following a burglary Dec. 30, 2013. Wade lived next door to the Wolfes.

In the latter motion, defense attorney Lisa Middleman wrote that without the sisters to testify exactly where the cap was found, it can't be proven that it was originally inside the house. She asked that a police officer, who believed the December burglary was the work of a neighbor, either to provide a report detailing how he came to that conclusion and what expertise he had, or keep that testimony from appearing in Wade's trial.

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.