Munchinski’s attorney wants to dismiss appeal
Claiming state prosecutors filed paperwork late and misstated several of the facts that led a judge to overturn to David J. Munchinski’s murder conviction, his attorney asked a court to dismiss an appeal in the case. Noah Geary, the Washington County attorney representing Munchinski, filed the paperwork earlier this week with the state Superior Court. The high court is presiding over an appeal of a visiting judge’s ruling that Munchinski’s conviction be vacated because three former Fayette County prosecutors committed misconduct and withheld evidence in the case.
In 1986, Munchinski was convicted of killing James P. Alford and Raymond Gierke at a Bear Rocks chalet in Bullskin Township on Dec. 2, 1977. Munchinski and co-defendant Leon Scaglione were arrested several years after the murders after Richard Bowen came forward to tell state police that he was a getaway driver for the two.
Bowen’s statements, specifically an alleged tape recording of the first statement he made to county prosecutors, are at the center of the case. After hearing testimony from former prosecutors and troopers, Northumberland County Senior Judge Barry F. Feudale ruled that prosecutors had to turn the tape over to Geary, or Munchinski’s conviction would be vacated and retrial barred.
Prosecutors continue to maintain that the tape does not exist and mounted an appeal of Feudale’s ruling.
Geary’s court filing asks the court to dismiss the appeal of Feudale’s Oct. 1, 2004 ruling because prosecutors filed several documents associated with the proceeding belatedly.
He also claimed that prosecutors, “made numerous patently false, reckless and irresponsible misstatements/misrepresentations of the record” in a filing that argued Munchinski’s conviction was wrongly vacated.
Geary said prosecutors wrongly argued that there was “no misconduct” in the case. He called that claim “an astounding assertion” given Feudale’s determination that prosecutors withheld 11 pieces of evidence that could have altered the outcome of Munchinski’s trial.
Geary also cites mistakes about when certain materials were turned over to him.
“Although this court can separate the ‘wheat from the chaff,’ such intentional, gross misrepresentations of the record … coupled with flagrant violations of the rules of appellate procedure at virtually every juncture is sanctionable conduct.”
Geary wrote that court rules allow an appeal to be dismissed because of such conduct and asked the Superior Court to do so.
Barring that, Geary requested additional time to reply to the prosecution’s brief and asked the court consider allowing the case to be argued orally before the panel instead of through briefs.
Geary cited the complexity of the case as a reason to consider the oral argument.
He requested the court allow oral arguments in June, but the court denied his request at that time.