Verdict upheld in Clearfield bombing

Judge rejects Addleman’s request to vacate conviction

U.S. District Judge Stephanie L. Haines in a decision Monday rejected a defense request to vacate the guilty verdicts of, or order a new trial for, Clint Addleman, formerly of Morrisdale, who was convicted recently in the bombing death of a Clearfield woman.

The 34-year-old victim, Shawna Carlson, allegedly owed a drug debt to Addleman, and prior to her death, he was threatening and persistent in his efforts to collect the money he insisted she owed.

She complained to a friend on Facebook that he would call her on the phone and come to her apartment in Clearfield.

She told her friend that "a dude was trying to legit kill me."

During the early morning of Oct. 4, 2019, a box disguised as a belated birthday gift was placed on her front porch, and when she opened the package, it exploded, killing her.

Investigators eventually arrested two Clearfield County men, Addleman, 49, who was charged with making the bomb, and Kris Nevling, also 49, who not only helped prepare the bomb, but also was tagged as the person who placed it on Carlson's porch.

Nevling was convicted last August for his role in the plot, and Addleman was convicted in March.

Addleman was convicted on charges of possession of an unregistered firearm/destructive device; malicious destruction of property by explosion or fire; and malicious destruction of property by explosion, causing death.

Addleman was also convicted of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine.

His attorney, Frank C. Walker II of Clairton, in June filed a petition asking that the guilty verdicts against Addleman be vacated or that he be granted a new trial.

The defense argued that "the prosecution failed to carry its burden."

"Mr. Addleman contends there was no meaningful physical evidence connecting him to the bombing or physical connection between Mr. Addleman and the bomb itself, such as fingerprints," Haines explained in her Monday opinion.

"Rather, the government's proof of identity depended almost entirely upon witnesses who expected a personal benefit," the judge stated, as she outlined the defense's case.

In her opinion, she noted that the key witnesses, among others, included individuals who were incarcerated with Addleman and who revealed statements he made to them.

In responding to the defense, Haines reported, the court must determine whether the government has adduced sufficient evidence respecting each element of the offenses charged.

"The jury's verdict must be assessed from the perspective of a reasonable juror, and the verdict must be upheld as long as it does not 'fall below the threshold of bare rationality,'" she continued.

Addleman, she noted, was critical of the use of confidential informants and cooperating witnesses.

But, she retorted, "Mr. Addleman's argument suffers from a significant flaw that ultimately renders it unavailing."

Haines found that the direct and circumstantial evidence presented by the government "is substantial (and indeed quite substantial) to uphold the jury's verdict of guilty" to the charges.

Haines stated the evidence against Addleman was "exceedingly strong."

For instance:

– The testimony by a witness indicated in a Facebook chat the victim reported she owed a thousand dollars to "Clint," and expressed she was afraid of "Clint."

– Another witness described how Addleman came to her house and asked for a box. She gave him two boxes. He then asked her to write a message on one of the boxes stating, "Sorry this is late."

The statement was similar to what was on the box delivered to Carlson's apartment.

– Addleman, it was testified, told a fellow inmate he was incarcerated for an explosion and related that he had another guy "who helped 'soup it up.'"

– He told yet another inmate he had made a bomb and had another guy deliver it, but he concluded the other guy was a "rat."

Haines concluded her opinion by stating, "When the Court examines all of this evidence in light most favorable to the Government, it finds more than substantial evidence for a rational trier of fact to find Mr. Addleman guilty of the offenses...beyond a reasonable doubt."

"A District Court may order a new trial only if it believes that there is serious danger that a miscarriage of justice has occurred -- that is, that an innocent person has been convicted," she stated.

Haines concluded that in her own judgment, the weight of the government's evidence "was quite strong and more than supported the jury's verdict of guilty on all counts. ... The Court has no concern whatsoever that an innocent person was convicted here."

She denied Addleman's motions for judgement of acquittal and for a new trial.

Addleman's sentencing hearing is scheduled for July 22.