Greensburg man appeals rape conviction, wants new trial |

Greensburg man appeals rape conviction, wants new trial

Rich Cholodofsky

A Greensburg man serving a 12-year prison sentence for the rape of an unconscious woman claims he should receive a new trial.

Benjamin Melvin Davis, 22, in an appeal filed Friday, argued that evidence presented at his June trial did not support the guilty verdict.

“… In particular, the credibility of the witnesses demands that a new trial be granted as the verdict was against the weight of the evidence,” wrote defense attorney Michael DeMatt.

A jury in June found Davis guilty of rape and conspiracy charges. Two women testified at trial they were sexually assaulted Jan. 18, 2018, by two friends who they took to their Greensburg home to smoke marijuana and socialize.

One woman testified she fell asleep and awoke to find Davis and another man, Levi Evans, 22, forcing themselves on her. Both she and the second woman testified at trial they felt paralyzed and unable to move before the one of the women was able to fend off her attackers.

This month, Westmoreland County Common Pleas Court Judge Christopher Feliciani sentenced Davis to serve 6 to 12 years in prison.

Evans, 22, of Greensburg, is awaiting trial for rape and other offenses. His trial is scheduled to begin in October.

Rich Cholodofsky is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Rich at 724-830-6293, [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.