Oct 8, 2002 By Christine Haines 6 min read

WASHINGTON – There is not just one reasonable doubt as to whether Gregory Modery is guilty of homicide and the other charges against him, but many doubts, according to defense attorney Fred Rabner in his closing argument Monday. Rabner spent three hours detailing conflicts in testimony and attacking the trustworthiness of many of the witnesses that were called over the past month by the prosecution, each of which he said raised reasonable doubts.

“You need evidence that is trustworthy before you find a man guilty, let alone take his life,” Rabner said.

Rabner said there is no forensic evidence tying his client to the murder of Ira Swearingen. Swearingen was kidnapped, beaten, robbed and shot to death on Dec. 12, 1999, while on his way from his home in Ohio to Uniontown to assist with surgery the next day. Swearingen was a consultant with Sulzer Orthopedics. Alexander Martos has confessed to shooting Swearingen, but testified that Modery, 32, of McMurray was his accomplice.

Several people who are charged in connection with the Swearingen case testified against Modery. Rabner cautioned the jury to weigh their trustworthiness.

“Did you ever think you’d be hearing a case with the cast of characters paraded in front of you in this case? They all seemed to have a substance of choice,” Rabner said. “I think we can all agree the individuals we met in this case are not individuals you can trust. If they came to install your cable, you wouldn’t let them in the door.”

Rabner also attacked the credibility of the witnesses based on inconsistencies in their testimony from earlier statements and from one another.

“The individuals presented by the commonwealth were so inconsistent …that you can’t find any of them trustworthy,” Rabner said. “These witnesses totally pull the rug out from one another.”

Rabner was particularly critical of the testimony of John Shaker, who he contends was actually with Martos the night of the murder, not Modery.

Shaker faces all the same charges as Martos and Modery except for homicide. Rabner pointed out that Shaker had been released from prison a short while before the Swearingen murder and the judge had noted that Shaker appeared to be a very dangerous man. Rabner emphasized Shaker’s drug habit and the amount of money he reportedly went through in Las Vegas supporting that habit.

Rabner also questioned the validity of Martos’ testimony.

“The man is trying to save his life. He wants to see his children, his sister and his mother. He doesn’t want to die. What greater motivation could he have to lie?” Rabner said. “Did you ever think you’d be asked to find someone guilty based on the killer’s word?”

Rabner went through many of the other witnesses in a similar fashion, noting their drug addictions, admissions to crimes and past convictions. He noted that letters written from prison by Michael Broglie, a former friend of Modery’s who allegedly participated in a past robbery and beating incident, reeked of hatred, as did his testimony.

Rabner asked the jurors to compare his client to the witnesses against him, noting that Modery has a stable family life, a good household income, no prior arrests and no indication of drug or alcohol problems.

“He had no motive to do the things these other people did,” Rabner said.

District Attorney John Pettit painted a different picture of Modery and his role in the incidents surrounding Swearingen’s death.

Pettit told they jurors no one ever expected them to invite the witnesses into their homes, but that doesn’t mean the jury can’t find the testimony credible.

“Who were those people? Who were every one of those people? Friends of that man sitting there in the blue shirt,” Pettit said, referring to Modery. “I’m sure there are choirboys in the Finleyville-Bentleyville area, but this man didn’t hang out with choir boys. He hung out with these people.”

Pettit also asked the jury to consider the demeanor of the witnesses, particularly Debbie Levandosky, who has been charged with tampering with evidence in the case. He characterized her as Modery’s babysitter, girlfriend and a participant in the events.

“Debbie Levandosky sat there on direct examination very tense, very nervous, very pale. When it came to cross-examination, did you see how relaxed she got? She now had a chance to help her friend.”

Pettit said Levandosky did something else, though. She placed Modery at dinner at the Baltimore House with Shaker, Martos and herself, with Shaker toasted as Ira Swearingen and signing Swearingen’s name to the bill.

Modery had told police the day he was arrested that he had seen Martos only twice since Martos had returned from Las Vegas, despite testimony from Levandosky and others that he and Martos had been together regularly between Dec. 3 and Dec. 17, 1999.

Pettit noted that Modery also told police he was home with his wife all night on Dec. 12, 1999. Pettit reminded the jury of the photo of Martos and Modery at the Pilot Truck Stop at 1:45 a.m. Dec. 13, approximately 45 minutes after Swearingen was murdered in Greene County.

“There is no question at this point that it is Al Martos, the confessed killer, and the defendant in that photograph,” Pettit said.

Pettit said that while there wasn’t actual forensic evidence against Modery, the driver’s license of a man beaten and robbed just three days after Swearingen’s murder was found in the driver’s side map pocket of Modery’s vehicle along with a receipt for an automatic teller transaction. In addition, two ski masks were found under the driver’s seat of the vehicle.

“It’s not forensic, but I’d say it’s rather convincing,” Pettit said.

Pettit also discredited the theory that Shaker was the second man with Martos and that Martos and Shaker have conspired against Modery.

“Shaker would be the obvious scapegoat. He’s a stranger to the community. No one would even miss him if he disappeared,” Pettit said. “Why cover for John Shaker? He’s a nobody to this group. He’s disposable, if you will.”

Pettit reminded jurors that under the accomplice liability theory, an accomplice is equally responsible for a crime if he aids or encourages the act.

“He’s the one that jammed Ira into the trunk to begin the night. He’s the one who drove the car, the one who picked the spot (for the murder), the one who egged Martos on by challenging his manhood. He’s the one who said ‘You can’t leave him there, you can see him from the road,'” Pettit said. “It doesn’t matter whether you package Al Martos in orange and sit him up there (on the witness stand) or dress the defendant in a blue shirt. They are both cowards. They are both killers.”

The jury will receive instructions from Judge Emery this morning at 8:30 a.m., then will begin deliberations on the charges of homicide, aggravated assault, kidnapping, robbery, tampering with evidence and conspiracy to commit each of those acts. The month-long trial involved nearly 80 witnesses and more than 200 pieces of evidence for the jurors to consider.