ShareThis Page
Pennsylvania

Justices to hear appeal in ambush attack that killed Pennsylvania state trooper

| Thursday, May 17, 2018, 12:54 a.m.
Eric Frein is escorted out by police on Oct. 31, 2014 after his arraignment at the Pike County Courthouse in Milford, Pa.
Associated Press
Eric Frein is escorted out by police on Oct. 31, 2014 after his arraignment at the Pike County Courthouse in Milford, Pa.

HARRISBURG — A man on death row for killing one Pennsylvania state trooper and wounding another to act out his anti-government beliefs wants the state Supreme Court to throw out his conviction.

Lawyers for Eric Frein and Pike County prosecutors are scheduled to argue before the justices Thursday in Harrisburg, nearly four years after the killings and subsequent 48-day manhunt in the Pocono Mountains.

Frein, 35, killed Cpl. Bryon Dickson II with two shots fired from the woods near the Blooming Grove state police barracks in September 2014, and wounded Trooper Alex Douglass so badly he has needed at least 18 major surgeries.

Frein's lawyers argue interrogators violated his right to remain silent and should have permitted him to speak with a defense lawyer his family retained the night he was captured. The lawyer was kept outside during three hours of questioning in which Frein confessed.

“The questioning at issue occurred after Mr. Frein was read his Miranda warnings, invoked his right to silence by clearly informing the troopers that he did not want to speak about any crime and refused to sign a Miranda waiver,” his lawyers argued in a brief filed in November.

They also say the trial judge allowed too much testimony about the impact of his crime during sentencing, 10 witnesses over two days, describing it as “emotionally charged, cumulative and much more prejudicial than probative.”

In a response two months ago, the Pike County district attorney's office said that even if Frein did assert his right to remain silent, he initiated a conversation about the crimes with a pair of state police investigators.

The trial judge has written that Frein's statements about not wanting to get too far into the matter or discuss crimes were ambiguous, given that he was willing to speak with the troopers about the location of a gun he had buried in the woods.

Prosecutors also said federal and state case law has held that police do not have to provide a defense lawyer with access to a suspect as he is being interrogated unless the suspect asserts his right to legal representation. And they said Frein has not shown how the victim impact testimony harmed him during the sentencing phase.

Frein was identified as a suspect soon after the shooting, in part because a neighbor noticed his vehicle had been abandoned after becoming stuck in a drainage pond not far from the murder scene. Frein left his wallet inside the vehicle.

In a letter to his parents written while he was hiding out, Frein said he did not “know what the revolution will look like or even if it would be successful.”

Prosecutors have said Frein spoke of wanting to start a revolution and described Dickson's slaying as an “assassination.” Frein allegedly said he wanted to “wake people up” and “make a change (in government).”

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.

click me