May 25, 2006 By Jennifer Harr 4 min read

A Fayette County judge said Wednesday he would decide at a later date if case law supports barring prosecutors from seeking the death penalty against a McClellandtown man accused of running down his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend. Mark Mehalov, attorney for Edward Belch, argued that prosecutors had to present evidence of aggravating factors at a preliminary hearing. There is a pre-determined list of such factors under which Pennsylvania prosecutors can seek the death penalty.

Several factors were alleged in the May 10, 2005, deaths of Terri Lynn Gresko, 44, of Edenborn, and her paramour, Thomas D. Myers, 54, of Masontown.

Belch, 45, of 148 Blaine Ave., is charged with two counts of criminal homicide for allegedly running the two – on Myers’ motorcycle – down with his truck on Route 21. Police have indicated that Belch saw the couple at the Uniontown Wal-Mart and weaved around traffic until he caught up with them and ran them over.

Among the aggravating factors alleged are that the killing amounted to torture, that there were multiple victims and that Gresko was killed when she had a protection from abuse order in place against Belch.

Mehalov argued that case law establishes that prosecutors had to do present evidence of each during Belch’s preliminary hearing in order to present them to a jury during a potential penalty phase in his criminal trial.

Assistant District Attorney Peter U. Hook said he did not believe Mehalov’s interpretation of the law is correct.

“Proof of aggravating factors only has to be presented at the penalty phase,” Hook said.

Judge Steve P. Leskinen said he will review the case law and decide whose interpretation is correct. If he decides that Mehalov is wrong, deciding if there was supporting evidence for each factor was presented at the preliminary hearing becomes moot.

Leskinen also heard brief arguments on Mehalov’s request to have jurors instructed that, in Pennsylvania, a life sentence means there is no possibility of parole. In addition to having that instruction during the trial and penalty phases, Mehalov said he wants it given during the individual questioning jurors will undergo to select a panel to hear the case.

“Most people do believe that life (in prison) means you’re going to get out at some point,” Mehalov said.

Mehalov noted that Judge John F. Wagner Jr. gave that type of instruction at all levels of Mark D. Edwards’ death penalty trial. Edwards was convicted of multiple murder counts in 2004 and sentenced to death for killing a North Union Township family.

Hook suggested that if a judge were to give that type of instruction, he should also tell jurors that, “imposing the death penalty doesn’t mean it’s actually going to be imposed.”

He pointed to Scott Blystone and Mark Breakiron, sentenced to die in 1986 and 1988, respectively. Neither has been executed, and Blystone was recently successful in overturning his death sentence. That is being appealed. Breakiron is in the process of appealing his.

The lone point resolved during the hearing was that prosecutors would provide Mehalov a list of those who will give victim impact statements if the case goes to the penalty phase. The statements can come on behalf of friends and family of both victims.

Mehalov had asked that only one person for each victim speak, arguing that additional statements would be prejudicial instead of probative for jurors. Leskinen did not limit the number of impact statements, but did order that those who wish to speak give an outline of what they want to say so that any challenges to their statements can be worked out before they testify.

Mehalov also argued that the statements should contain facts, not emotions.

Hook said during his time as a prosecutor he has reigned families in with pictures or overly emotional statements, but said that in a homicide case emotions naturally come into play.