'The system failed': How judicial maneuvering set a suspect free and led to a fatal Pittsburgh shooting

Caitlin Zack believes her mother should be alive.

On June 4, Samantha Howells was shot and killed in Crafton Heights as she checked on property she owned.

The man accused of killing her, 19-year-old Isreal Moseby, was previously jailed for allegedly stabbing a woman in the throat in 2023. In January, he was moved to an unlocked community facility.

On May 5, he walked away, and a month later, Howells was dead.

“The system failed,” Zack said. “This guy is literally stabbing a lady, and you let him out — and then you don’t keep an eye on him?

“And then, when he did run, why wasn’t there a manhunt? Why wasn’t it somebody’s job to go find that guy?”

A TribLive investigation showed why Moseby’s case is even more complicated.

Over the course of 14 months, Moseby was denied bond four times by Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Edward J. Borkowski — over the public defender’s objections.

Moseby was a threat to himself and the community, Borkowski said.

Although the judge agreed Moseby was incompetent to stand trial because of an intellectual disability, he did not believe he should be released to anything other than a locked facility. So Moseby remained in jail.

Dissatisfied with Borkowski’s rulings, the public defender’s office filed a new petition — before a different judge. They turned to Allegheny County Orphans’ Court, where they sought to modify Moseby’s bond so he could be placed in an unlocked community center — the same center Borkowski had rejected.

The petition went before Judge Michael McCarthy, one of four judges in that division. After a Dec. 18 hearing — at which neither the District Attorney’s Office nor the stabbing victim was present — McCarthy released Moseby to the Penn Hills center.

“For him to be in an open facility is just ridiculous,” Zack said. “That judge should be punished and should feel terrible. My mother is dead because of that decision.”

David A. Harris, a criminal law professor at the University of Pittsburgh, called it “an absolute tragedy.”

“The lady who was murdered would be alive but for the release of this person, assuming he’s the guilty party,” Harris said. “A life was lost for no good reason.

“Whether somebody made a mistake or it’s a gap in the system, it just makes it worse. In a case like this, you have to ask: Wasn’t there a way to prevent this?”

Pointing fingers

The circumstances of Howells’ slaying expose unresolved questions about how courts operate when public safety is at stake.

At issue: How are cases reassigned without full transparency? Why weren’t prosecutors or victims notified of a key hearing? Can one judge override another in the same jurisdiction? And why are there still so few secure treatment facilities to treat people with intellectual disabilities accused of violent crimes?

“There are explanations that have to be given by a whole lot of people here,” said Bruce Antkowiak, a criminal law professor at Saint Vincent College and a former federal prosecutor. “It’s really a fundamental question of how did the system permit this to occur?”

Neither Borkowski nor McCarthy would comment for this story. And the District Attorney’s Office would not answer any specific questions about the case or its proceedings.

However, District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr., in a statement Friday, said it “would be highly inappropriate and possibly unethical” for a defendant to make the same bond request to a new judge in a different division without providing notice to the prosecution, victim and previous judge.”

Zappala continued, “This is especially so if the intent was to address the case in another court in order to exclude the District Attorney’s Office and the victim from the proceedings.”

Acting Chief Public Defender Andy Howard on Friday said his office provided notice to the prosecution that the bond motion would be presented to McCarthy. Still, he said, the assistant district attorney assigned to the case didn’t show up.

“She either knew or should have known what the date was,” he said, referring to the assistant district attorney. “Or she should have asked.”

In the meantime, the public defender’s office late last week filed a motion to seal the records in Orphans’ Court. A hearing is scheduled for Monday before President Judge Susan Evashavik DiLucente.

She also would not comment for this story.

Two stab wounds and a fractured rib

On Sept. 7, 2023, Pittsburgh police were called to a North Side home for a report of a woman having been attacked.

The investigation showed the victim had been walking back from a neighborhood market about 10:40 p.m. when she saw Moseby, whom she recognized as a friend of a teen she knew, according to the criminal complaint.

Moseby began walking with her, making small talk. As they approached her home, the woman told Moseby she was going into her house.

“Nice speaking with you,” she told him, “have a good night.”

A short time later, when she opened the rear door of her home, she told police, “Moseby bum-rushed (her), forcing his way into the residence.”

He brandished a knife.

“Where’s the gun?” he asked.

The woman responded she didn’t have one. Moseby then stabbed her in the neck and dragged her around the house as he ransacked it.

“Moseby also repeatedly stated he was ‘17 years old,’ ‘bipolar’ and ‘didn’t want to do this,’ ” the complaint said.

He then stabbed the victim a second time and dragged her into the basement. It was there, the complaint said, that the woman directed her dog to attack Moseby. She was then able to wrestle the knife away, and Moseby fled.

The victim suffered two stab wounds to her neck, police said. She had a fractured rib and lacerations on her hand.

Police arrested Moseby 12 days later.

A threat to the community?

A month after that, Moseby’s public defender filed a motion for bond modification before Borkowski.

Her client, who was still 17, was being held in the Allegheny County Jail because no juvenile facilities were available.

At the first bond hearing Oct. 20, 2023, the Public Defender’s Office said it had found a potential family placement for Moseby. But pretrial services recommended Moseby remain in jail. Their risk assessment suggested he posed a threat to the victim, witnesses and the community.

Borkowski found that Moseby presented a danger to the community by virtue of his “repeated acts of violence.” He denied bond.

Borkowski did so again for the same reason during subsequent hearings Nov. 15 and Dec. 13, 2023, and Nov. 6, 2024.

Moseby had been arrested at least twice before as a juvenile, including for robbery and a firearms count. Each of those cases was dismissed because he wasn’t competent to stand trial.

Following one of those earlier arrests, Moseby had been sent to another community facility, where he remained for four months before walking away after an altercation with a staff member.

“In light of his past history of violence and this particular incident … he cannot be maintained safely in the community,” Borkowski said.

In addition to requesting bond, Assistant public defender Sam Sridaran filed a motion for a competency hearing.

Borkowski heard testimony March 8 and May 13, 2024, from four experts about the teen’s mental health and intellectual functioning. The testimony established that Moseby had an IQ of 55 and symptoms consistent with intellectual disability, including difficulty with focus, attention and organization.

On May 31, 2024, Borkowski found that Moseby was not competent to stand trial. He ordered him to be committed to Torrance State Hospital for up to one year.

Torrance, though, would not take Moseby. Officials there believed he could not be made competent because of his intellectual disability.

Moseby remained at the Allegheny County Jail.

At the final hearing before Borkowski — on Nov. 6 — Sridaran told the court the county Office of Developmental Supports had identified a residential provider willing to take Moseby — Exceptional Home Care in Penn Hills.

There, Moseby would receive in-home support, have one-on-one staffing and could be placed on electronic home monitoring, Sridaran said.

But, the judge said, the safeguards were not enough. Exceptional Home Care is not a locked facility.

“The court is not satisfied that the proposed placement site will protect the victim or community at large,” Borkowski wrote on the order.

Bond was denied.

Orphan’s Court

Around that same time, the county — on behalf of Allegheny County’s Children, Youth and Families — filed a petition in Orphan’s Court to have Moseby committed under Section 406 of the Mental Health and Intellectual Disability Act to a state center — also not a locked facility.

The case was assigned to Judge McCarthy.

Although Borkowski received notice of the mental health proceeding, he did not receive notice of an accompanying motion filed by the public defender to again attempt to modify Moseby’s criminal bond.

McCarthy included both matters at the Dec. 18 hearing.

According to court records, Moseby’s public defender was present, as were two attorneys from the state Department of Human Services, a lawyer appointed as a guardian to protect Moseby’s interests and an attorney representing CYF.

There was no prosecutor, as is required by statute. And the stabbing victim was not provided notice that the hearing was going to occur — also required by law.

The singular reference to the prosecution during that hearing was by an attorney for DHS who said the bond issue is a matter “between the Public Defender’s Office and the Assistant District Attorney who was certified to be here today. I can’t speak for the commonwealth in that capacity.”

All of the attorneys present agreed with the recommendation of the public defender and state DHS that Moseby be placed at Exceptional Home Care.

McCarthy said during the hearing that Borkowski “punted” the issue to him.

“I’m returning the kick,” McCarthy said.

The attorney for DHS told McCarthy that with an appropriate care plan, the concern for safety of the community should be reduced substantially.

“I agree,” McCarthy said. “I also understand there is no absolute.”

Later, McCarthy said, “I just want to make sure we’ve got eyes on the prize, which is to put him in a position consistent with what has been determined, not just by me but by Judge Borkowski, and it’s in the best interest not only of the community, but him.”

McCarthy heard testimony from a forensic psychiatrist as well as a CYF caseworker and a manager at the county Office of Developmental Supports.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Sridaran urged the judge to release Moseby from jail.

“Whatever you decide today, I just ask that you set bond consistently just to make sure that we don’t have to go back across the street and have a decision in front of Judge Borkowski,” Sridaran said. “But ultimately, Isreal needs to be out of the jail. Everyone agrees with that.”

Sridaran argued there were other ways to ensure community safety, including electronic home monitoring.

“Should he (leave) the house, the court is going to immediately know about that. But, overall, Isreal needs to be out of the jail,” Sridaran said.

McCarthy responded: “My concern is Mr. Moseby, but it’s also the community in general and … his being in the community.”

The judge took the matter under advisement. On Jan. 21, he issued an order to modify the bond in the criminal case.

In his order, McCarthy wrote that Moseby met the requirements of the statute and that, “because of his intellectual disability and other diagnosed conditions, (he) presents a substantial risk of physical injury to others and cannot safely exist in the community without a suitable residential placement.”

McCarthy found that the plan for Moseby to move to Exceptional Home Care would provide him with appropriate supports and released him to the facility.

The Office of Developmental Supports was to file a status report six months later, McCarthy wrote.

Before that could happen, Moseby walked away from the home.

A bench warrant was issued for his arrest May 6, but police didn’t find him until a month later.

By then, Howells was dead.

‘Once he gets mad, he cannot stop’

At 4:38 a.m. June 4, Pittsburgh police were called to the 1400 block of Chartiers Avenue in Crafton Heights for the report of a ShotSpotter notification.

When officers arrived, they found a woman slumped over the open door of a black Mitsubishi Outlander.

Samantha Howells, 52, had been shot multiple times in the torso, including at close range, according to the criminal complaint. She was taken to Allegheny General Hospital, where she died.

Police believe Howells was killed because she confronted a group of people she thought were suspicious.

Using a bloodhound and video surveillance cameras, investigators identified Moseby as the shooter, according to the criminal complaint.

A witness told police Howells approached Moseby with her cellphone out, taking photos. The witness said Moseby grabbed her, marched her toward the front of her car and shot her twice.

The witness said she was afraid of Moseby, and that he “told her about him hurting people.”

Moseby also told the woman, according to the complaint, that he would have shot Howells more but the gun jammed.

“(Moseby) told (the witnesses) he did not want to shoot the victim but, once he gets mad, he cannot stop,” the complaint said.

Moseby was arrested June 9 on the North Side. He was taken back to the county jail. On Tuesday, he is scheduled for a competency hearing before Borkowski.

Zack said she thinks Moseby is competent to stand trial.

“He’s competent to work a gun. He knows what he’s doing,” she said. “He didn’t have to kill my mother. And now we’re without our mom. My grandmother is without her daughter.

“My family is devastated, torn and broken,” she said. “He deserves to sit in jail for the rest of his life.”

‘Shouldn’t the DA be here?’

According to the Pennsylvania rules of criminal procedure, a bond may not be modified without providing notice to opposing counsel and having a hearing on the motion “when all parties are present.”

That was not the case when McCarthy granted Moseby’s release to the community center.

“Any action to modify (Borkowski’s) order has to have occurred with the notice and presence of the District Attorney’s Office,” said Antkowiak, the Saint Vincent professor.

But, he continued, McCarthy chose to move forward on the motion without the prosecution being represented. Even if the District Attorney’s Office did not receive notice, Antkowiak continued, it’s not unusual for a judge to summon a prosecutor when he feels their presence is required.

“I’m astounded by this,” Antkowiak said. “What baffles me is — didn’t anybody stand up and say, ‘Shouldn’t the DA be here?’ ”

The district attorney’s news release Friday agreed with that statement. It noted that without the presence of a prosecutor, “the underlying facts of the criminal action may not even be addressed at the hearing.”

“If the attorney for the District Attorney’s Office is not notified of the date of a bail hearing in Orphan’s Court and is not present, there is no one at the hearing to argue on behalf of the public and the individual victim regarding the defendant’s dangerousness.”

However, Acting Chief Public Defender Andy Howard said Assistant District Attorney Brittany Felder, who had handled the Moseby case for months in criminal court, had notice of the McCarthy hearing.

According to a transcript from the Nov. 6 hearing before Borkowski, in which Felder participated, the date for the McCarthy hearing was announced.

The Public Defender’s Office provided TribLive with copies of emails that show Felder was copied on a Dec. 11 email by Sridaran in which she asked the court if she could present the bond motion to McCarthy at the same time as the mental health petition.

Howard said it is common practice to email prosecutors to provide notice.

“That notice, of course, is only meaningful if the assistant district attorney bothers to open, read and respond to their emails,” Howard said.

Further, the Public Defender’s Office provided a Dec. 18 email in which Felder was again copied — time-stamped at 4:56 p.m. after the conclusion of the hearing before McCarthy — that the judge had taken the bond modification under advisement.

The court docket does not show that Felder ever filed a written response, objection or motion for reconsideration. The DA’s office also did not file an appeal of McCarthy’s bond modification to the state Superior Court, which is common.

Zappala’s office did not respond to specific questions on those issues.

The other potential flaw in the McCarthy bond hearing, experts said, is the failure to notify the stabbing victim.

According to what is known as Act 71, victims of crimes in Pennsylvania are to be notified of proceedings to modify a defendant’s bond and have the right to speak.

“Before making a determination, the court shall make every effort to permit the fullest attendance possible by the victim and shall consider reasonable alternatives to the exclusion of the victim,” the law reads.

That didn’t happen in the hearing before McCarthy.

At the hearing’s conclusion, a manager from pretrial services sent an email to the parties noting that the victim was not there and that another hearing might be necessary to comply with Act 71.

However, there was no additional hearing.

Balancing risk

Harris, the Pitt law professor, said every decision to release a defendant on bond requires a balancing of risks — which are heightened when the crime involves violence.

“It’s easy to tell where Judge Borkowski struck the balance. And it is therefore tempting to blame Judge McCarthy for a wrong call that resulted in a catastrophe,” Harris said. “But we have to remember that Judge McCarthy is operating not just on the civil side but saw a petition for an entirely different purpose, no doubt utilizing different criteria.”

Moseby had the right to file his mental health petition before McCarthy, Antkowiak said. The problem is the criminal charges that were pending at the same time and that “another judge had already ruled bail is not to be granted,” he said.

The Mental Health Act, Antkowiak said, doesn’t contemplate the same things as a bond requires.

“The bond system only concerns itself with two things: Are you going to show up (to court) and are you a danger to the community?” he said. “Both of those are rightful considerations.”

The bond decision, Antkowiak said, should trump concerns over disability law.

“This individual was not being held simply because of their mental disability,” he said. “They are being held because they are a danger to the community.”

But Howard, the acting chief public defender, said the court is not permitted to keep “intellectually disabled people in jail indefinitely just because they are intellectually disabled.” In many instances, he said, disabled individuals charged with crimes can be successfully placed in a facility that protects them and the community.

“Pennsylvania’s disturbing lack of resources for children and young adults with severe disabilities, particularly secure housing facilities and appropriate care homes, forces the court to make impossible decisions between illegal incarceration and reckless abandonment of society’s most vulnerable,” he said. “It is a moral failing and a public safety risk.”

On that, the district attorney agrees.

“Regardless of motivation, any attempts to move cases from one court division to another for housing issues highlight the severe lack of secure facilities for pretrial detention of violent individuals with mental health or intellectual disabilities,” their statement said. “Instead of reducing services or closing facilities that provide secure detention, there should be a focus on actually creating them. This is a serious public health and safety concern that must be addressed immediately.”

Howard said it is common for their office to request a bond modification and commitment hearing to be held at the same time before the same judge.

“This approach helps preserve the integrity of the record, limits disclosure of our clients’ confidential medical information and promotes judicial efficiency,” he said.

The Public Defender’s Office was doing its job, Antkowiak said.

“They have an obligation to pursue any legitimate avenues to try to serve their clients’ interests,” he said. “You cannot fault that person. You cannot hold them up to scorn or derision. They are required to zealously defend their client.”

But, he continued, “You’d expect the process of the system would work differently than it did here.”