×

Sides mull settlement in civil rights suit

Siehl’s first degree murder charges, life sentence dismissed in 2016

The parties involved in the federal civil rights lawsuit of a Johnstown man who claims he was wrongfully convicted of killing his wife in 1991 will attempt to reach an out-of-court settlement even though the litigation remains in its early stages.

First degree murder charges and a sentence of life in prison against Kevin Siehl were dismissed in 2016 after years of post conviction hearings.

The Pennsylvania Attorney General decided not to retry Siehl, who had already spent 25 years behind bars.

Siehl was released from custody nearly three years ago, but last year filed a civil lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Johnstown against two city police officers, two state police forensic investigators and the prosecutors who, Siehl contends, fabricated evidence, covered up evidence favorable to the defense and denied him a fair trial.

The lawsuit also asks for damages from Cambria County, which failed to have protocols in place for DNA testing of the blood evidence found at the scene of Christine Siehl’s murder. It is believed she was murdered in the early morning hours of July 13, 1991.

U.S. District Judge Kim R. Gibson in Johnstown recused himself from the case because one of the detectives named in the lawsuit is now on the security staff of the federal building.

Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan of Pittsburgh has been assigned to preside over the civil action.

Lenihan recently refused to dismiss the civil charges, and in the past two weeks the defendants have filed answers denying the charges and emphasizing they did not deprive Siehl of his right to a fair trial.

The defendants also say they are entitled to immunity from civil liability, a claim that Lenihan has so far rejected but which could be raised after discovery in the case has been completed.

On Wednesday, the parties indicated they will enter the federal court’s Alternative Dispute Resolu­tion program, a step that could lead to an out-of-court settlement.

They agreed to an “early neutral evaluation” of the case, a process in which the case will be reviewed with an attorney who is an expert in civil litigation, Kenneth Benson of Pittsburgh.

Benson has been involved in the settlement of many civil cases in the Western Pennsylvania District Court.

The ADR process is to be completed no later than May 31, according to the agreement by the parties.

Those involved in the process will include:

Attorney William Bar­bin, the Cambria County solicitor, representing the prosecutors, former Assis­tant District Attorneys David Tulowitzki, now a Court of Common Pleas judge in Cambria County, and David Lovette.

Johnstown City Mana­ger George Hayfield, and insurance experts Jack Maher and Angela Tennis on behalf of detectives Angelo Cancelliere and Lawrence Wagner.

Andrew Rongaus, the chief deputy counsel for the Pennsylvania State Police, representing PSP forensic experts Merrill Brant and Scott Ermlick.

Siehl is being represented by Philadelphia attorney Jonathan H. Feinberg.

The case involves the arrest and conviction of Siehl, who in 1991 was separated from his 29-year-old wife, Christine, but it was agreed during the trial that Siehl and his wife maintained a relationship and during the night of July 12, 1991, they went to a couple of bars.

Kevin Siehl contended that Christine Siehl dropped him off at his parents’ home and then in­formed him she was going to meet her boyfriend at an after-hours club.

Christine’s body was found in the tub of her apartment — with the water running — on the morning of July 14. She had been stabbed with a knife multiple times.

There were signs of a struggle with broken glass strewn about, kitty litter on the floor and blood on the floor and splattered on the walls.

The investigation linked Siehl to a fingerprint found on the showerhead, blood splatter on the walls and alleged blood on the L.S. Gear shoes he was wearing that night.

Feinberg contended in his lawsuit that investigators focused on Siehl to the exclusion of at least two other prime suspects, Christine’s boyfriend and a relative of Siehl’s who didn’t like her.

The physical evidence — the fingerprint, blood links to Siehl on the wall and shoes — eventually proved to be false, according to the lawsuit.

Feinberg also claims the prosecutors instructed the state police to withhold evidence from a test of the L.A. Gear shoes, conducted during the trial, that would have supported Siehl’s story of innocence.

In their answer to the lawsuit, the detectives indicated they based their affidavit of probable cause on evidence provided to them by the state police.

For instance, they pointed out that the state police forensic investigator reported to them that Siehl’s right thumbprint “was a match to the latent print developed on the showerhead …” and that a message left by Trooper Brant on July 17, 1991, reiterated the point.

The written report by Trooper Brant issued on July 23, 1991, stated that his identification of the print as belonging to Siehl had also been confirmed by another trooper in the Greensburg laboratory, the city detectives claim.

The detectives denied they focused on Siehl as the only suspect and reported extensive investigation into the two other suspects.

The state police, in answering the lawsuit, admitted that they concluded the print on the showerhead “was made by the right thumb of Kevin Charles Siehl.”

The defense claimed that in post conviction hearings “the latent print found on the showerhead was, in fact, not a match to Mr. Siehl’s thumbprint. …”

In the lawsuit, Feinberg also claimed that state police identified a blood spot on the doorframe of the bathroom — known as item 22 — as matching Siehl’s blood.

State police denied falsely identifying the blood spot as belonging to Siehl but answered in their report that two spots of blood, side-by-side (items 21 and 22) together “matched the respective blood profiles of (Kevin) and Christine Siehl.”

That report, according to the lawsuit, was “false and fabricated.”

In the answer by Tulo­witzki and Lovette, the prosecutors admitted they asked the forensic investigators during the first day of Siehl’s trial to “conduct additional examination of testing of the L.A. Gear tennis shoes.”

They denied, however, that a re-examination of the shoes uncovered exculpatory evidence that would have been favorable to Siehl’s defense, and they denied they directed Ermlick “not to prepare any formal report. …”

It took 22 years for the lab notes concerning the lack of blood on the shoes to come to the surface, the lawsuit contends.

NEWSLETTER

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)
Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper? *
   

Starting at $4.39/week.

Subscribe Today