Court upholds New Kensington woman’s prison sentence for aiding accused cop killer | TribLIVE.com
Valley News Dispatch

Court upholds New Kensington woman’s prison sentence for aiding accused cop killer

Paul Peirce
1534297_web1_vnd-Lakita-Cainweb-082419
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
Lakita Cain of New Kensington

A state appellate court upheld the prison sentence for a New Kensington woman who helped a man accused of fatally shooting city police Officer Brian Shaw in 2017.

Lakita Caine, 41, pleaded guilty in May 2018 to hindering the apprehension of Rahmael Sol Holt, who is accused of shooting and killing Shaw during a Nov. 17, 2017, traffic stop. Caine was sentenced in October to three to seven years in prison.

Caine argued in state Superior Court that the sentence should be overturned because it exceeded state sentencing guidelines.

While the standard guidelines for hindering apprehension typically call for a few months in jail, Assistant District Attorney James Lazar argued that letters exchanged between Holt and Caine showed she was upset with witnesses who reported her to police.

Witnesses told police that Holt visited Caine’s home shortly after the shooting and left behind an unidentified object in the basement.

Investigators believe the object was the weapon used to kill Shaw, and it was subsequently removed from Caine’s house by another woman, according to Westmoreland County Detective Ray Dupilka.

Police said Caine initially lied when investigators questioned her and her daughter about Holt’s whereabouts following the shooting. She said she had not seen Holt and didn’t know his whereabouts. Holt was arrested four days later in Pittsburgh.

Westmoreland County Judge Rita Hathaway said at Caine’s sentencing that Caine should have known better because she holds an associate’s degree in criminal justice.

“She knew Rahmael Holt was in her home and a police officer was killed. If she had not lied, they’d have that gun,” Hathaway said at the sentencing.

The appellate court agreed with Hathaway.

“(Caine) showed no remorse after her crimes and complained to Rahmael Holt that she was facing charges due to a ‘snitch’ and lamented that Holt could not find a way to get her out of prison. For these reasons, the trial court’s sentence was not an abuse of discretion,” the appellate court wrote in its seven-page opinion.

Holt, 31, of Harrison, is scheduled to be tried on charges including first-degree murder this fall. Jury selection for Holt’s November trial is scheduled to begin in late October.

Testimony is slated to begin Nov. 4. Prosecutors said they will seek the death penalty if Holt is convicted.

Caine’s daughter, Taylor Mitchell, 20, pleaded guilty to the same offense — hindering the apprehensive of a fugitive — and was sentenced by Hathaway to serve 11-1/2 to 23 months in jail and an additional two years on probation. A state appeals court in 2018 upheld that sentence as well.

Lisa Harrington, 32, of New Kensington, the woman police said may have removed the gun from Caine’s home, was charged with three counts of hindering the apprehension of Holt. Her case is scheduled for trial in October.

Paul Peirce is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Paul at 724-850-2860, [email protected] or via Twitter .

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.