Lawsuit by North Huntingdon woman in murder case dismissed
A North Huntingdon woman failed to show that three Pittsburgh detectives who charged her with the 1986 murder of her husband misled an investigative grand jury and a judge, a federal judge ruled last week.
Police in 2007 charged Diana Rader, 68, with the murder of Raymond Marzoch, 47, a state prison guard who was found fatally shot inside a downtown Pittsburgh parking garage.
One month after Rader was indicted, Common Pleas Judge Lawrence J. O'Toole dismissed the charges against her for lack of evidence.
Prosecutors accused Rader of killing Raymond Marzoch as the pair sat in Marzoch's car on Feb. 15, 1986, in the Kaufmann's parking garage.
Marzoch, 47, then a guard at the former Western Penitentiary on the North Side, planned to meet Rader at the garage for a late lunch, according to testimony from retired prison guard Raymond Kotomski.
Another of Marzoch's co-workers, William Miller, testified at the 2007 hearing that Marzoch had said, “Bill, if I ever turn up dead, my wife did it.”
Rader countered she was shopping in McKeesport at the time of the shooting.
In 2009, Rader sued the city and the three detectives who worked the case over the years — J.R. Smith, Scott Evans and Terry Hediger. She dropped the city from the lawsuit in September.
On Friday, U.S. District Judge David Cercone threw out Rader's lawsuit, granting a summary judgment in favor of the detectives.
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 â 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.