ShareThis Page
Man rejects plea deal in East Huntingdon pedestrian fatality case | TribLIVE.com
Westmoreland

Man rejects plea deal in East Huntingdon pedestrian fatality case

Rich Cholodofsky
822502_web1_gtr-hitrunarrest1-122616
Submitted
Matthew Ramsay

A New Stanton motorist prosecutors contend was under the influence of drugs when he struck and killed a pedestrian on Christmas Eve 2016 in East Huntingdon rejected a plea deal on Friday that would have required him to serve up to 40 years in prison.

Matthew Ramsay, 31, is charged with third-degree murder, vehicular homicide and other offenses for the hit-and-run crash on Ruffsdale Alverton Road in which 49-year-old Joseph Cummings was killed. Police said Cummings was walking his dog when Ramsay deliberately swerved his vehicle across the road and struck Cummings.

Ramsay, according to police, had methadone, Xanax and marijuana in his system at the time of the crash.

In court on Friday, defense attorney James Robinson said his client would not accept the offered deal that would have resulted in a prison sentence of 15 to 40 years. Ramsay last year rejected a proposed deal for a 10-to-30-year prison sentence.

Assistant District Attorney Pete Flanigan said the deal for lesser prison time is off the table.

“That deal was not accepted by the original deadline,” Flanigan said.

Robinson told Common Pleas Court Judge Christopher Feliciani that his client would accept a plea bargain that called for Ramsay to serve three-to-six years behind bars. Flanigan rejected that counter-offer. The case now appears headed for a jury trial.

The trial is scheduled for next term that begins on March 11.

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 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.