Man convicted of murdering sisters in East Liberty seeks new trial |

Man convicted of murdering sisters in East Liberty seeks new trial

Tom Davidson
Tribune-Review file
Allen Wade is led from court on the fifth floor of the Allegheny County Courthouse Thursday May 26, 2016 after a jury announced it was deadlocked deciding his penalty phase of his trial for the 2014 murders of Susan and Sarah Wolfe.
Tribune-Review file
Allen Wade, 43 of East Liberty is escorted in handcuffs from police headquarters on the North Side by Pittsburgh police, Wednesday, after he was charged with the shooting deaths of Susan Wolfe and Sarah Wolfe who were found dead in their Chislett Street home on February 7.

The Pittsburgh man serving life in prison for killing his neighbors in 2014 in East Liberty is seeking a new trial.

Allen Wade, 48, is serving consecutive life sentences, one for each victim, plus three consecutive terms of 10 to 20 years for two counts of robbery and one count of burglary for the Feb. 7, 2014, killing of sisters Sarah and Susan Wolfe in their Chislett Street home.

He was convicted in May 2016 but spared the death penalty after a lengthy trial.

Attorneys argued before Superior Court judges this week whether allowing a jury access during deliberations to a PowerPoint presentation on DNA evidence used in the trial violated Pennsylvania jury rules.

In seeking a new trial for Wade, Victoria H. Vidt, Wade’s attorney from the Allegheny County Public Defender’s Office, has argued that jurors should not have been allowed to have the PowerPoint during deliberations, that a knit hat used during the trial should not have been allowed as evidence and a witness shouldn’t have been allowed to mention a lie detector test.

The district attorney’s office has said the issues raised in Wade’s appeal wouldn’t have affected the trial because of other overwhelming evidence against him.

Susan Wolfe, 44, was a teacher’s aide at the Hillel Academy in Squirrel Hill. Sarah Wolfe, 38, was a psychiatrist at Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic in Oakland. They were both shot in the head and found in the basement of their home, doused with bleach and laundry detergent.

The crime rattled the neighborhood.

Police ultimately charged Wade, their next-door neighbor, with the crimes, relying on DNA evidence and surveillance footage of Wade using or attempting to use their bank cards to make ATM withdrawals.

During brief arguments Tuesday before Superior Court judges in Pittsburgh, Vidt focused on the PowerPoint presentation, which she said is akin to jurors having access to a transcript of testimony while they deliberated. That isn’t allowed by Pennsylvania’s rules governing juries because it could cause jurors to give more weight to such evidence, Vidt said.

Assistant District Attorney Karen Edwards countered that the slides in the PowerPoint amounted to a bullet-point summary of complicated testimony. Wade’s appeal also failed to show how the PowerPoint slides’ use in jury deliberations impacted the verdict, Edwards argued. The court specifically instructed the jury to consider all of the DNA testimony, and the defense hasn’t produced any evidence that the jury didn’t follow that instruction, the DA’s office argued in its brief filed with the court.

The knit hat had Wade’s DNA on it and was found in the Wolfes’ home after a burglary investigation more than five weeks before the sisters were killed. Vidt argued it shouldn’t have been used as evidence in Wade’s murder trial.

The hat was admitted as evidence not because it was found during the burglary investigation but to show Wade had been in the Wolfes’ home — something he denied, prosecutors argued.

The mention by a witness of a lie detector test shouldn’t have been allowed because such tests aren’t admissible in Pennsylvania, Vidt said. Mention of the test was made in passing and wasn’t relevant to the verdict in the case, the DA’s office said.

Superior Court hasn’t issued an opinion on the appeal.

Tom Davidson is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Tom at 724-226-4715, [email protected] or via Twitter .

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.