ShareThis Page
Home

Professor's 2nd trial in shooting proceeds

| Wednesday, Sept. 15, 2004

An Allegheny County judge on Tuesday denied a defense attorney's request to drop all charges against Edward Constant II, a former Carnegie Mellon University professor accused of trying to shoot two Mt. Lebanon police officers.

Attorney Paul Messing had argued that a second attempted homicide trial for Constant would constitute double jeopardy, the legal term for unconstitutionally trying a defendant twice for the same crime.

Common Pleas Judge David R. Cashman also rejected Messing's request that the judge testify whether he is biased against Constant, 61, of Mt. Lebanon, and Cashman refused to recuse himself from the second trial.

A jury April 2 convicted Constant of two counts each of attempted homicide and aggravated assault for shooting a police officer wearing a bulletproof vest and firing at another officer during a domestic dispute at Constant's home on May 26, 2002.

Cashman sentenced Constant to 14 1/2 to 29 years in prison on June 24.

Common Pleas Judge Donna Jo McDaniel overturned the conviction July 20 after a juror alleged that a member of Cashman's staff had improperly participated in jury deliberations.

Juror Patricia Clark told McDaniel that some jurors had opposed convicting Constant of attempted homicide when Cashman's tipstaff, or aide, Mary Feeney, intervened to help jurors determine whether Constant intended to kill the police officers.

To be convicted of attempted homicide, a defendant must show an intent to kill.

Clark testified during the hearing before McDaniel that Feeney gave jurors a hypothetical situation in which someone involved in an argument pointed a gun at several jurors. Then Feeney asked jurors what the gun-holder's intent would be.

A juror said maybe the intent would be to kill them.

"I am not sure if (Feeney) said yes or if she shook her head, but my feeling was that was the right answer to the question," Clark told McDaniel.

At least one juror told McDaniel the example did not sway the verdict, but McDaniel ordered a new trial. Cashman kept the case.

Messing argued that Cashman has shown his bias against Constant by publicly supporting Feeney, including in media interviews in which he pledged Feeney would be on duty during Constant's second trial.

Cashman said there is no evidence he has any bias. He said judges cannot abandon a case every time a lawyer dislikes a ruling or objects to procedures. "If you do that, you're abandoning your responsibilities," he said.

Messing then tried to call the judge to the witness stand.

Feeney, who invoked her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, declined Messing's request to testify. Her lawyer, Patrick Thomassey, could not be reached for comment.

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