Penn man will not get retrial for killing Hempfield man
A Penn Township man serving life in prison for gunning down a Hempfield man eight years ago along railroad tracks in Manor will not receive a new trial, an appellate court has ruled.
The state Supreme Court this week said it will not consider the appeal of Jason P. Maple, 33, who was convicted of the first-degree murder of 25-year-old William Teck in 2006.
Prosecutors said Maple led a group of four men and his girlfriend, Jennifer Vinsek, to Manor after he was told Teck had attempted to rape Vinsek.
Teck and a friend, Patrick Altman, were lured out of a diner to the railroad tracks, where Maple, armed with a shotgun, followed them, prosecutors said.
Maple fired the gun, killing Teck and wounding Altman, police said.
Vinsek was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison.
The three other men involved in the killing pleaded guilty to third-degree murder and testified against Maple and Vinsek.
In court documents, Maple contended he received poor representation during his trial in 2008, when defense attorney Mark Lancaster attempted to convince jurors that his client acted in a fit of passion.
Lancaster sought a conviction on the less serious charge of voluntary manslaughter.
At an appeal hearing last year, Lancaster testified he pursued the wrong trial defense.
St. Vincent law professor Bruce Antkowiak, a former prosecutor, testified that evidence indicated that Maple should have contended he was guilty of third-degree murder and not guilty of premeditated murder.
Rich Cholodofsky is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 724-830-6293 or email@example.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 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.