Man jailed 19 months before Allegheny County DA's office drops homicide charge

When Pittsburgh police charged Tyler Sherrell with homicide, claiming he was the getaway driver in a fatal shooting, the only evidence they had was the self-serving word of the man who orchestrated the hit.

Matthew Lambert waited two years after his arrest before giving detectives Sherrell’s name. He met with them just weeks before his own plea, all in an effort to cooperate with prosecutors to avoid a possible life sentence.

For 19 months, Sherrell sat in jail based on Lambert’s statements. No other evidence against him ever surfaced, attorneys for the defendants said.

Then on Sept. 12, the day Sherrell’s trial was scheduled, prosecutors abruptly dropped the charges, citing “evidentiary issues.” No further explanation was offered.

Lawyers and legal experts question why it took nearly a year and a half for the Allegheny County District Attorney’s Office to abandon the case. They say it is a prime example of a strategy in which prosecutors overcharge a weak case in order to pressure a defendant to confess to a crime in the absence of solid evidence.

It is wrong and unethical for a prosecutor to overinflate charges in the hopes of building a case later, said University of Pittsburgh criminal law professor David A. Harris.

“But is it done? Yes,” Harris said. “They file charges they can’t yet prove and think, or hope, that they’ll have the evidence when push comes to shove, or the person — held in custody — will either turn on the others and provide evidence or will plead guilty to a lesser charge in order to get out.”

Overcharging is common in prosecutors’ offices across the country, particularly in jurisdictions that purport to be tough on crime.

“(American Bar Association) rules tell us that a prosecutor is not just an advocate seeking to win but a minister of justice,” Harris said. “But these rules lack teeth and can be ignored with impunity.”

Some questioned the tactic, while legal, of prosecutors relying on little more than the word of a tainted witness to file charges.

“Just because prosecutors can file charges based on the word of someone currying favor for himself doesn’t mean they should,” said Daniel Medwed, a criminal law professor at Northeastern University.

Fundamental problems with the case were obvious shortly after Sherrell’s arrest, said Randall McKinney, a lawyer who represented him at an early stage. Lambert’s statement, McKinney said, was not credible and came from a compromised witness.

But under Pennsylvania’s rules, credibility of a witness is not to be considered at a preliminary hearing, where a magistrate decides whether there is enough evidence to send a case to trial in Common Pleas Court. The bar is low, and the evidence is considered in the light most favorable to prosecutors.

“The DA’s office knows this,” McKinney said. “So they piece these sham cases together and hope that, after the preliminary hearing, they can obtain new evidence. In the meantime, the defendant remains incarcerated on a case that everyone knows will eventually result in an acquittal.“

McKinney, like many other defense attorneys, is cynical.

“It’s a broken system,” he said.

The district attorney’s office refused to discuss the Sherrell case in detail. In response to questions from TribLive, First Assistant District Attorney Rebecca Spangler said prosecutors weren’t sure they could prove the charges against Sherrell beyond a reasonable doubt. She said the investigation remains active, and declined further comment.

The crime

On May 8, 2019, Tre Valorie became the victim of jealous rage when he was fatally shot on Pittsburgh’s North Side. He had been out that night with his girlfriend, who months earlier had broken up with Lambert.

Lambert, who previously had sent threatening messages to his ex, quickly became a suspect. Within weeks, he was charged with stalking and later homicide.

For two years, Lambert remained the only person charged.

As his homicide case moved closer to trial, Lambert became desperate for a plea that would allow him to avoid a first-degree murder conviction and mandatory life sentence. Letters he wrote from jail showed Lambert was contemplating cooperating with investigators.

On Sept. 17, 2021, he went to Pittsburgh police headquarters and identified three people he said conspired in the attack.

Two of them, Lambert said, were involved in the actual shooting: Jerquay Atkins and Onaje Dickinson. The third was Sherrell.

Lambert claimed Sherrell, now 25, was to be the getaway driver. He told investigators that he paid Sherrell $250.

On Oct. 4, 2021, Lambert pleaded guilty to third-degree murder, conspiracy, reckless endangerment and stalking, with no agreement on sentencing. Common Pleas Judge Edward J. Borkowski later ordered him to serve 22 to 54 years.

Just more than a week later, on Oct. 12, 2021, Pittsburgh police filed charges of criminal homicide and conspiracy against Sherrell and Atkins. Dickinson had been killed by Penn Hills police on July 14, 2019. Police were looking for Dickinson after they said he killed a man during a robbery. When police entered a home where Dickinson had been hiding, investigators said he shot at and charged an officer, who returned fire, killing him.

The only evidence against Sherrell, according to the criminal complaint, was Lambert’s word. Unlike in many homicide cases where there is fingerprint evidence, cellphone tracking, text messages, ballistics or DNA, in Sherrell’s case there was none of that.

Sherrell , who had a 1-month-old son at home and another who was 2, told investigators he didn’t know anything about the shooting.

He was arrested and taken to Allegheny County Jail. He remained there for 19 months — held on the toughest of pods.

During his stay, Sherrell told TribLive in an interview, he got covid-19 and was jumped and stabbed.

“I had so much (to be) looking forward to,” he said. “Jail messes up the mind. Period.”

The case against him

Defense attorney Jamie Hickton, who represents Atkins, said it was shocking the charges against her client and Sherrell were filed.

“I anticipated there had to have been some smoking gun, some substantive evidence other than Lambert’s testimony alone,” she said.

There wasn’t, she said.

At the preliminary hearing before District Judge Michele Santicola on Nov. 19, 2021, the only evidence presented was testimony from Lambert, the man who admitted to setting up the murder.

Lambert told the judge that he planned the attack with Atkins and Dickinson in the days before. At the time, Lambert said, Sherrell was not present. Lambert claimed he talked to Sherrell about it a week later, although prosecutors presented nothing at the preliminary hearing to support that.

Lambert and Sherrell had met in jail a few years earlier, although Lambert said they hadn’t spoken since.

Sherrell later said in a letter to the judge that Lambert’s statement that they met in jail was the only true thing he said in his testimony.

Lambert told the judge that he saw Sherrell the evening before the shooting and Sherrell gave either Atkins or Dickinson a hooded sweatshirt, the prosecution claimed, to disguise them.

According to his statement to police, Lambert didn’t see Sherrell again until after the attack, when he claimed Sherrell followed Atkins and Dickinson to Lambert’s father’s house.

Again, the prosecution presented nothing to corroborate Lambert’s claims.

Lambert ultimately testified that Sherrell was not the getaway driver. Lambert told the judge that he drove himself away from the scene.

“So what did he do on the day Mr. Valorie was killed to assist you in killing Mr. Valorie?” McKinney, Sherrell’s lawyer, asked.

“I mean, he was sitting there. I guess he didn’t do nothing,” Lambert answered.

During cross-examination, McKinney painted the witness’ testimony as unreliable.

“So when did you start talking to police?” McKinney asked.

“Recently,” Lambert said.

“So it took two years from the date that you hatched this alleged plan for you to begin talking to police about Mr. Atkins and Mr. Sherrell’s alleged involvement, correct?” McKinney pushed.

“Correct. I mean, I was told it would help me out,” Lambert answered.

After testimony concluded, McKinney asked the judge to dismiss the charges.

Assistant District Attorney Alex Cashman argued that Sherrell actively helped to carry out the plan to kill Valorie, provided a sweatshirt to help conceal one of the shooters’ identities and accepted payment.

In his closing argument, Atkins’ attorney at the time, Giuseppe Rosselli, noted that Lambert’s cooperation resulted in a plea knocking his charges from first- to third-degree murder, avoiding a mandatory life sentence.

“We have the self-serving statement of a murderer,” Rosselli said. “That, in and of itself, should be a sufficient basis for this case to be stopped right here.”

Santicola was not swayed. She held the case for trial against both men.

The Common Pleas case

As Sherrell’s case made its way through Common Pleas Court, both sides asked to postpone the trial because they weren’t ready to proceed. Defense attorney Milt Raiford, who took over Sherrell’s case, filed two postponements, and the prosecution filed one.

Raiford also filed a motion seeking to have the charges dismissed based on a lack of evidence. Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Beth A. Lazzara denied that motion.

However, on May 17, she granted Raiford’s request to release Sherrell to electronic home monitoring while the case was pending — after he spent 19 months in jail. In the meantime, Raiford was in discussions with the district attorney’s office to reach a potential plea.

On March 29, Cashman, the prosecutor, offered to Sherrell a plea to conspiracy with time served and probation but only if Atkins pleaded guilty, too.

Raiford said he had to consider the offer because it would have gotten his client out of jail without risking a possible conviction on a charge that would carry a much longer prison term.

Then, the day after Sherrell was released to home monitoring, according to an email in the case, Cashman dropped the contingency that Atkins had to plead, too. By then Raiford was no longer interested in the plea. He believed his client was innocent.

Atkins pleaded guilty to third-degree murder and was sentenced to six to 12 years in prison.

McKinney, who represented Sherrell at his preliminary hearing, said he found it alarming that the DA’s office lodged a charge of criminal homicide “based solely on the word of the person who admitted the murder.”

Hickton, who worked as a prosecutor in the DA’s office for five years, agreed. “I thought it should have been tossed against Sherrell, absolutely,” she said.

First Deputy District Attorney Spangler said the prosecution had video evidence that supported the case against Sherrell.

“In addition to other evidence, the discovery provided to all counsel included corroborating video footage placing each co-conspirator at the scene,” Spangler said.

Raiford and Hickton said the video evidence turned over to them shows no such thing.

“He never was at the scene,” Raiford said. “If they had video at the scene, they would have never (dismissed) the case.”

Spangler refused to show the video to TribLive.

Cashman, who left the DA’s office in the summer and now is working at the state Attorney General’s Office, said he no longer has access to the file and could not comment.

Mike DeRiso, who represented Lambert, did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Raiford said magistrates, part of the lower-level judiciary in Pennsylvania, are intimidated by the DA’s office and often hold a case for trial simply for that reason.

Medwed, who teaches at Northeastern, agreed. He said the standard to hold charges for court at a preliminary hearing should be enhanced.

“They’re largely a rubber stamp for the government,” he said. “This is a case where (Sherrell) paid the price for that rubber stamp.”

Experts said that in some cases, the word of one person can be enough to file charges. It is common, Medwed said, for that to occur in a sex assault. In criminal law, there’s not a corroboration requirement — that prosecutors have more than the word of one person to prove their case.

The difference is that in sex assault cases, it is the word of the alleged victim, not of the co-conspirator trying to avoid a life sentence.

“When there are reasons to think a witness might be lying, you would like to think the prosecution would advance justice and choose to decline to prosecute,” Medwed said.

Many prosecutors won’t pursue charges unless they believe they can meet the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, said George Fisher, a former prosecutor in Massachusetts who now teaches criminal law at Stanford University.

“Many prosecutors would say it’s wiser and perhaps more ethical to reach the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt before bringing charges, especially when someone is going to be in jail awaiting trial for a long time,” Fisher said. But, he added, “the law doesn’t demand it.”

In Sherrell’s case, Medwed said it was appropriate for the police to investigate him given Lambert’s statement to detectives. That is particularly so, Medwed said, because when Dickinson was killed in Penn Hills, a gun used in the Valorie shooting was found at the scene.

That provided at least some credibility for Lambert, Medwed said, because he implicated Dickinson in killing Valorie. But, he said, it was clear Lambert was an incentivized witness willing to give prosecutors whatever they needed to knock decades off his own sentence.

Prosecutors, Medwed said, have two obligations: to be zealous advocates for the government while simultaneously advancing justice for everyone.

“We expect more of prosecutors. They represent the people,” he said. “You would hope prosecutors, when they’re juggling those responsibilities, they would balance them in a way where justice would rise to the fore.

“That includes declining to prosecute a case where there are serious doubts.”

Although Medwed did not want to discuss the specifics of Sherrell’s charges without reviewing the entire case file, Fisher said allegations of planning a crime, agreeing to be a getaway driver or providing an article of clothing to a co-conspirator could be used to support charges.

“The charges brought should reflect fairly the conduct of the individual and have a realistic ability to win at trial,” he said. “It’s not OK to bring charges if the prosecution does not have probable cause — in hopes of developing evidence for trial.”

Fisher said it’s never wrong for the police and prosecution to work to strengthen a case already filed.

“There’s often enough evidence to suggest a person is dangerous and needs to be brought into the system’s fold and be placed under supervision,” he said.

But 19 months is a long time to develop evidence, he said.

“Letting someone sit in jail when the prosecution has lost confidence it will ever be able to prove its charges beyond a reasonable doubt is not appropriate,” he said.

If aspects of a case dissolve, the prosecutor should withdraw charges and not wait until the eve of trial, Fisher said.

The DA’s office handled the case improperly from the start, Raiford said.

“They didn’t give a damn about his life,” he said.