ShareThis Page

Lawyers say new DNA evidence proves John Kunco innocent of New Kensington rape

Rich Cholodofsky
| Wednesday, May 16, 2018, 6:00 p.m.
John Kunco
John Kunco

Lawyers for an Allegheny County man serving 90 years in prison for raping a New Kensington woman nearly three decades ago say they have evidence that proves he is innocent.

Westmoreland County Common Pleas Judge Christopher Feliciani scheduled a May 23 hearing on a defense request to allow John Kunco to be released on bail while he appeals his 1991 conviction.

Kunco, now 52, formerly of Harrison, was convicted of rape and other offenses for the brutal sexual assault of a 55-year-old woman in her home and was sentenced to serve 45 to 90 years in prison. Prosecutors said Kunco broke into the woman's apartment, blindfolded her with her underwear, shocked her with a frayed electrical cord, then raped her and forced her to perform sexual acts.

According to court records, the woman identified Kunco by his lisp. At trial, prosecutors showed jurors photographs of a healed bite mark on the woman that experts said matched a dental imprint of Kunco's mouth.

The defense has since maintained the bite mark evidence used to convict Kunco was based on faulty science. DNA testing last year of a blanket believed to have been present during the rape found no traces of Kunco's genetic material, according to the defense. DNA evidence was not presented during Kunco's trial.

“DNA testing has now shown that Mr. Kunco is actually innocent of those charges,” wrote defense lawyers Karen Thompson of the Innocence Project in New York and Pittsburgh attorney Wendy Williams.

District Attorney John Peck said Wednesday that Kunco is not entitled to bail and was confident the rape conviction will stand.

“There was other evidence in the case that identified the defendant as committing this crime,” Peck said.

Rich Cholodofsky is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at 724-830-6293 or

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.

click me