Judge dismisses most claims in Robert Ferrante's quest for new trial

An Allegheny County judge dismissed all but one of the claims made by former University of Pittsburgh researcher Robert Ferrante, who’s seeking a new trial after his 2014 conviction for murdering his wife with cyanide.

Defense attorney Chris Rand Eyster, who represents Ferrante, said he’ll make the most of Judge Jeffrey A. Manning’s opinion and anticipates further appeals if a new trial isn’t granted.

Ferrante, 71, is serving a life sentence in state prison for the 2013 murder of his wife, former UPMC neurologist Dr. Autumn Klein.

Klein died April 20, 2013, three days after collapsing in their home in the Schenley Farms section of Pittsburgh’s Oakland neighborhood. In a 2014 trial, Ferrante was found guilty of first-degree murder for killing Klein, who was 41, with cyanide hidden in creatine supplements she took for fertility.

In an opinion released Monday, the judge asked prosecutors to file a response with more information to address a missing court transcript from a Sept. 2, 2014, hearing in Manning’s chambers. In that hearing, Ferrante, his lawyers and prosecutors discussed not having an out-of-town jury hear the case.

The transcript can’t be located, the court reporter who recorded it is dead, and media reports contradict Eyster’s claim that Ferrante wasn’t fully informed before a decision was made to proceed with an Allegheny County jury in the case, according to Manning’s opinion.

A hearing will be set once prosecutors respond to Manning’s request for more information about the transcript and to try to re-create the record so the judge can make a decision.

The Allegheny County District Attorney’s office declined to comment on the case.

Eyster isn’t abandoning the issues he’s raised that Manning has dismissed and may appeal the case further as it proceeds. He had called into question the testing methods used to determine Klein had been poisoned with cyanide and provided three expert opinions that found fault with them. Eyster has also argued that several small issues that came up over the course of the case add up to the need for a new trial, he said.