Murder suspect’s interview process scrutinized
A Fayette County judge will have to decide if state police had the right to question criminal homicide suspect Catherine Hamborsky after a relative retained an attorney to represent her without her knowledge. Judge Steve P. Leskinen has given Hamborsky’s attorney, Samuel Davis, and District Attorney Nancy D. Vernon until Thursday to turn in any additional case law that they feel supports their points in the case.
Police allege that Hamborsky shot and stabbed Thomas “Gunner” Lesniak at JJ’s Bar in Upper Tyrone Township on Jan. 4, 2005. The interview in question took place two days later.
Hamborsky reportedly told police she was defending herself when Lesniak, 52, tried to rape her. To get away, Hamborsky, 40, of 607 Kingview Road, Scottdale, reportedly told police that she shot and stabbed him. She reportedly acknowledged returning later to the scene to set the bar on fire.
Davis has contended that Hamborsky’s cousin’s husband retained him on Jan. 6, 2005, while she was in police custody. While she was being questioned from 3-3:29 p.m., Davis or a representative of his office made three calls trying to stop questioning.
Davis said he called the voicemail of the trooper he believed was involved in Hamborsky’s arrest and left a message to cease questioning at 3:01 p.m. That trooper was not involved and not working. At 3:13 p.m., Davis called one district judge’s office and three minutes later called another’s office.
Sgt. James D. Caccimelio testified that a trooper at Magisterial District Judge Dwight Shaner’s office told him Davis called that office looking for Hamborsky. When trooper Thomas Maher relayed that a secretary in the office told him of the call, Caccimelio testified he called Shaner’s office to verify the message and then contacted Vernon.
She told him to stop any further questioning, and Caccimelio testified he told the troopers talking to Hamborsky to stop.
He told Davis that it took about five minutes to make the calls and stop the interview.
Vernon said she did not believe she was legally bound to stop police from talking to Hamborsky because neither she nor police ever were contacted directly by Davis.
“I stopped the interview out of an abundance of caution for the seriousness of this case,” Vernon said.
Vernon also noted case law that she said indicates that only Hamborsky as the defendant could invoke her right to remain silent – not an attorney hired by a third person.
Even if Davis could stop the interview after being retained, Vernon argued that he never did so by calling the barracks and directly asking or by calling the county prosecutors office to notify that he was representing Hamborsky.
“That’s like (Davis) sitting in his office, thinking ‘I wish she wasn’t talking to police.’ It has no effect,” Vernon said.
Davis said he “applauded” Vernon’s decision to stop questioning, but noted a 1977 case that held that questioning of a defendant should cease at the request of an attorney retained to represent them. That holds true even if a third party retains the lawyer, Davis argued.
“You can have your attorney, even unbeknownst to you, exercise that right (to remain silent),” Davis argued.
He asked Leskinen to suppress the entire statement.
Davis also is asking Leskinen to preclude testimony from forensic pathologist Dr. Cyril H. Wecht. During a February hearing, Wecht testified that he believed Lesniak died from heart failure that resulted from gunshots allegedly inflicted by Hamborsky.
The pathologist also acknowledged that Lesniak could have died before the shots were fired, Davis said.
Davis also argued that his case would be prejudiced if prosecutors put Wecht on the stand because he is an expert witness.
Although jurors are instructed not to give such witnesses more weight, Davis said that they tend to do so.
Vernon pointed out that while Wecht found Lesniak died from heart failure, he noted he believed it was a result of the stress of being shot because Lesniak’s brain was enlarged and his lungs congested. Those things indicated he lived after being shot, Vernon argued.
“Clearly, this is for a jury to believe or disbelieve his testimony,” Vernon argued.