Share This Page

Double jeopardy argued in 1987 South Union homicide case

| Thursday, Feb. 27, 2014, 11:33 p.m.

A Fayette County man who won a new trial after being sentenced to death for a 1987 homicide can't be tried again without violating his right against double jeopardy, a defense attorney argues.

Mark David Breakiron, 52, formerly of Hopwood was convicted of homicide and robbery in 1988 and sentenced to death for the stabbing of Saundra Marie Martin, 24.

Martin was working at Shenanigan's Lounge in German Township to earn money to go to school to become a dental hygienist.

She was closing the business for the night on March 24, 1987, when Breakiron attacked her, took her purse and the bar's receipts and drove her to his grandparents' house in South Union, where he tortured and killed her, according to police.

Breakiron won a new trial when a federal judge ruled in May 2011 that prosecutors withheld evidence about a jailhouse snitch that could have been used to impeach his testimony against Breakiron.

During a hearing on Thursday to continue the retrial until May, Leskinen said defense attorneys have advised him of their intention to try to prevent the retrial with a claim of double jeopardy — being tried twice for the same crime.

One of Breakiron's attorneys, Sam Davis of Uniontown, said a federal defender will file the petition in U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh. Leskinen said such an appeal could take a year or longer to be resolved in federal court.

Should Breakiron win the claim of double jeopardy, he could seek his release, even if prosecutors appealed, Davis said.

“If the double jeopardy claim is upheld, then he can't be retried,” Davis said. “The question is, would he be free at that point, pending an appeal of the commonwealth? It would be my understanding, he would be.”

In addition to the pending federal petition, Breakiron's attorneys wanted a continuance for a number of other reasons.

Leskinen said attorneys advised him prosecutors intend to introduce DNA evidence that was not available in 1987. Defense attorneys plan to file a petition seeking permission to hire their own expert to counter that testimony, the judge said.

Other experts the defense wants to hire include a “knife expert” to challenge the findings of a prosecution witness and a psychiatrist to evaluate Breakiron.

Leskinen ordered the trial continued to May. Breakiron, who attended the hearing via videoconference, remains lodged at the State Correctional Institution at Greene in Greene County.

Liz Zemba is a reporter for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 412-601-2166 or lzemba@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.