Mar 30, 2006 By Jennifer Harr 4 min read

A Fayette County judge will allow the attorney for a criminal homicide suspect two more weeks to present additional testimony as to why a recent urine test showed cocaine in her system. During a Wednesday hearing, Catherine Hamborsky denied using the drug and her attorney, Samuel Davis, argued that the test could have been a false positive.

Hamborsky, 40, of 607 Kingview Road, Scottdale is out on bond while awaiting trial in the Jan. 4, 2005 death of Thomas “Gunner” Lesniak. She will remain free until the hearing is completed and Leskinen decides whether to revoke her bond as deputy prosecutor Peter U. Hook requested.

Adult probation officer James Williams Jr. testified he talked to Hamborsky several times by phone on March 22, and then later went to her home to discuss the positive drug test. During one of the conversations, Williams said he asked Hamborsky how the test came back positive.

“I admit it, I screwed up,” he testified she said.

However, Hamborsky testified that Williams took the remark out of context.

“Obviously there was a mess-up somewhere,” Hamborsky testified she told Williams.

Williams gave Hamborsky the random test on March 15. He testified he sent it to a Virginia lab for analysis and received confirmation that the test was positive several days later. Another person at the adult probation office requested that the urine be re-tested and that test also came back positive, although at a different level.

Hamborsky allegedly shot and stabbed Lesniak at JJ’s Bar in Upper Tyrone Township. Lesniak worked as a bartender at the establishment, which was owned by his brother.

After Hamborsky left the bar, state police allege she returned later to set the building on fire. She is charged with homicide, arson and abuse of a corpse.

Davis assured Leskinen that Hamborsky did not use cocaine, and asked Williams if he had ever seen a drug test show an inaccurate positive result. Williams testified he had, but not with cocaine.

Since the positive test result, Hamborsky testified she has been trying to think of what she did differently that may have influenced the out come of the drug test.

“I’ve been driving myself crazy thinking about what I’ve done differently between this test and the other test,” Hamborsky testified.

Hamborsky also testified she has been seeing a psychiatrist and therapist and is taking various drugs. The day before her March 14 court appearance, Hamborsky testified her doctor advised she double up on some of the medications to ease her nerves. She testified she gets “completely crazy” before court appearances and has nightmares of what happened with Lesniak.

Hamborsky reportedly told police that she killed Lesniak because he tried to sexually assault her and she was forced to defend herself. She did not tell police what happened for two days.

She also testified she started applying a South African hair product on her son’s head two weeks before the positive test. The 13-year-old lost his hair after his mother’s arrest. A Web site for the product, which she identified as Hair Fantastique, indicates it is “of natural origin” and contains no drugs.

Hamborsky testified she has been applying the product to her son’s hair for two weeks, however another drug test performed on March 22 came back negative for cocaine.

Testimony indicated that six random tests performed before March 15 also came back negative.

Davis maintained that without the scientist who performed the drug testing, there was no way to know how the test was performed and if it was flawed. Because he only received the lab report the morning of the hearing, Davis said he was handicapped in presenting any testimony to refute the lab findings.

“We don’t have any other answer other than to say she didn’t do this. She didn’t violate this order,” Davis said.

Hamborsky testified she was grateful for the chance to be free on bond.

“I would not intentionally have screwed it up by any means,” she said.

Leskinen gave Davis two weeks to present any additional testimony that may bolster his contention that the test was erroneously positive.

The jurist will not make a ruling until then.