Attorney for Turtle Creek man seeks to try 2 overdose death cases separately |

Attorney for Turtle Creek man seeks to try 2 overdose death cases separately

Renatta Signorini
Paul Peirce | Tribune-Review
Demetrius Christmas

It would be unfair for an Allegheny County man accused in two 2017 drug overdose deaths to have one trial for both cases, his attorney argued Thursday.

Demetrius Bernard Christmas, 30, of Turtle Creek, is seeking to have separate trials in connection with the deaths of Paul Lucas, 21, of Murrysville, and Jeffrey Gettemy, 30, of Greensburg. He allegedly supplied the drugs to a dealer who sold heroin to the pair about seven weeks apart.

Attorney Lee Rothman said because two victims died on separate occasions — Lucas on April 13, 2017, and Gettemy on June 1, 2017 — there should be two trials. If there were separate trials, information about the death of the other victim would not be admissible, Rothman argued.

“Would a human being be more likely to convict someone because they hear he is” connected to two deaths and not one? That’s the fear,” Rothman said.

There are “all types of possibilities of prejudice” in trying both cases at the same time, he said.

“I think this case screams and shouts for this court to sever,” Rothman said.

Prosecutors have consolidated the cases and intend to try them together. Assistant District Attorney Anthony Iannamorelli said Christmas’ co-defendant, Jeremy Mason, 34, of Manor, identified him in both deaths as his supplier. Mason is accused of selling the drugs to Gettemy and Lucas.

“Those details and facts line up with each other,” Iannamorelli said.

Both Christmas and Mason are charged with drug delivery resulting in death in addition to other offenses.

Judge Timothy Krieger ordered both parties submit briefs with their arguments. Christmas’ trial was pushed back to later this year.

Renatta Signorini is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Renatta at 724-837-5374, [email protected] or via Twitter .

Categories: Local | Westmoreland
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.