Loyalhanna man seeks to overturn conviction for killing his mother, sister and aunt | TribLIVE.com

Loyalhanna man seeks to overturn conviction for killing his mother, sister and aunt

Rich Cholodofsky

Westmoreland County prosecutors on Monday challenged a judge’s ruling allocating up to $2,500 in taxpayer money for defense lawyers to hire a ballistics expert to help craft an appeal for a death row inmate.

Kevin Murphy, 58, of Loyalhanna, is seeking to overturn his conviction to three counts of first-degree murder for the 2009 shooting deaths of his mother, sister and aunt in the workshop of a family-owned auto glass repair business. Police said Doris Murphy, 69; sister Kris Murphy, 43; and aunt Edith Tietge, 81, were each shot in the back of the head with a .22 caliber revolver linked to Murphy. Prosecutors contended at trial the woman were killed because they disapproved of Murphy’s romantic relationship with a married woman and didn’t want her to live at the family home near Saltsburg, Indiana County.

A jury in 2013 sentenced Murphy to death by lethal injection.

Common Pleas Court Judge Meagan Bilik-DeFazio last week signed a court order presented without the prosecution being notified that allocated funds for court-appointed lawyers Brian Aston and Ken Noga to hire a private ballistics expert to review evidence used against Murphy in his trial.

District Attorney John Peck and Assistant District Attorney Jim Lazar said the prosecution should have been allowed to challenge Murphy’s need to hire a ballistics expert.

“The fact that the defendant has already hired and presented an expert in the field of ballistics makes it difficult to imagine on which grounds for relief … a new ballistic expert could be relevant,” Peck and Lazar wrote.

Murphy was represented at his 2013 trial by private attorneys and as part of his defense his lawyers retained their own ballistics evidence prior to the trial, prosecutors said.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 2016 denied Murphy’s initial appeal, saying the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.

Murphy’s latest appeal has yet to be filed.

According to court documents filed last week, Aston and Noga said a new ballistics expert is needed to review evidence used against Murphy in which witnesses linked the murder weapon to a gun owned by Murphy and found at the crime scene. Two bullet fragments from one of the victims could not be linked to the recovered weapon and DNA evidence introduced at Murphy’s trial indicated an unknown person had contact with the gun, the defense lawyers said.

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