ShareThis Page

Ferrante jury to come from Allegheny County, not Dauphin County

Aaron Aupperlee
| Tuesday, Sept. 2, 2014, 12:33 p.m.
Dr. Autumn Marie Klein collapsed on April 17, 2013, and died three days later with a lethal concentration of cyanide in her system.
Submitted
Dr. Autumn Marie Klein collapsed on April 17, 2013, and died three days later with a lethal concentration of cyanide in her system.
Robert Ferrante, 65, is charged in the poisoning death of his wife, Dr. Autumn Marie Klein.
Stephanie Strasburg | Tribune-Review
Robert Ferrante, 65, is charged in the poisoning death of his wife, Dr. Autumn Marie Klein.

An Allegheny County jury, not one from Dauphin County, will be asked to decide whether a University of Pittsburgh researcher killed his wife, a UPMC neurologist, with cyanide.

Attorneys for Robert Ferrante, 65, withdrew their request to select the jury from outside Allegheny County. Common Pleas President Judge Jeffrey A. Manning on Tuesday approved their decision.

The District Attorney's Office declined to comment, citing a gag order in the case. Ferrante's attorneys did not return calls. Manning said the case did not draw the “community outrage” of others.

“Although this is a very significant case, it does not seem to me that there is compelling community outrage that we found in jury selection with Richard Baumhammers and Richard Poplawski,” said Manning, according to a transcript of Tuesday's hearing. Baumhammers killed six people in a racially motivated shooting spree, and Poplawski fatally shot three Pittsburgh police officers.

Ferrante is charged with homicide in the death of his wife, Dr. Autumn Marie Klein, 41. She died on April 20, 2013, three days after collapsing in the couple's Schenley Farms home.

Manning granted a defense request for an out-of-county jury in May, despite concern about the cost. The state Supreme Court ruled the jury would come from Dauphin County.

Legal experts not affiliated with the case said the nature of pretrial news coverage may have changed the defense attorneys' minds.

“The reason to ask for an out-of-county jury in the first place was to avoid possible bias in the jury pool here that could have resulted from a tsunami of mostly damning press coverage,” John Burkoff, a Pitt law professor, wrote in an email to the Tribune-Review.

“But, given more recent media coverage of the case reporting defense arguments about the possibility of low or no cyanide levels in his wife's blood, Ferrante's defense counsel are apparently less worried about getting a jury pool that has already prejudged their client's guilt.”

Ferrante's attorneys have said during pretrial hearings that tests conducted by NMS Labs, a Philadelphia-based forensic toxicology lab, showed “non-fatal” levels of cyanide in Klein's blood. Manning is to decide whether to allow Dr. Robert A. Middleberg, vice president of NMS Labs, to testify.

Manning's approval of the local jury suggests the judge agrees that the county can produce a fair and unbiased pool, Burkoff said. The defense's about-face has stripped Ferrante of complaining on appeal about where the jury came from, he added.

Wes Oliver, a Duquesne University Law School professor, said the defense may think that pretrial news coverage has been uniform statewide, negating any benefit Ferrante could gain from an out-of-county jury. Allegheny County jurors, familiar with the prominence and esteem of the medical community in Pittsburgh, could afford more credibility to Ferrante than jurors from a rural county in the central part of the state, he said.

Jury selection is scheduled to start Sept. 22 at the Allegheny County Courthouse, Downtown.

Aaron Aupperlee is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-320-7986 or aaupperlee @tribweb.com.

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.