ShareThis Page
News

Connellsville homicide trial set to open

| Monday, June 5, 2006

Brian Watson has never denied throwing a punch that knocked John Finnerty Jr. to the pavement on July 2, 2004.

But Watson has refuted some witness accounts that he was the aggressor in a brief fight outside the Paint Room in Connellsville.

This week, a Fayette County jury will be asked to decide whether Watson should be held criminally responsible for the head injuries that led Finnerty's family to remove him from life support one day after the encounter.

Watson, 31, of Dunbar Township, goes on trial this morning in Uniontown on a charge of criminal homicide.

Finnerty, of Everson, was a 33-year-old pipefitter who was hanging out at the bar early that morning with his brother and some friends. Several patrons gave Connellsville police conflicting accounts as to whether Finnerty yelled at Watson before Watson left the bar.

In an interview with police, Watson claimed that Finnerty had beaten him up years earlier because of an argument about a girl.

Watson and some of his friends who were at the bar that night told police that Finnerty came at Watson outside the bar but that Watson swung at Finnerty to defend himself.

Finnerty's friends described Watson as the attacker who struck Finnerty while he was motionless on the ground and bleeding from the head, according to police reports.

In December, Judge Steve P. Leskinen ruled that prosecutors had enough evidence to try the homicide case but lacked the evidence to show that Watson intended to kill Finnerty when he allegedly knocked him down.

Finnerty's family has initiated a civil case on the victim's behalf. In May, a lawsuit was filed against Watson, the Connellsville Parking Authority, city government and several individuals, including the owner of the Paint Room. A complaint detailing the allegations has not been filed.

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.

click me