Sep 20, 2008 4 min read

Lawrence Cseripko Sr., 62, was convicted of first-degree murder for shooting Paul Horvat, 54, in a wooded area of Menallen Township. The shooting occurred in 1997, but police were unable to build a strong enough case to arrest Cseripko.

Police did, however, take deer meat from Cseripko’s freezer. Prosecutors theorized that the meat was from a deer that Horvat killed before Cseripko shot him. With advances in DNA testing, police were able to create a database of DNA from deer meat samples gathered by authorities in preparation for the trial.

That database gave scientists a point of comparison for deer DNA, which had yet to be used in a criminal trial in Pennsylvania. Scientists ultimately compared the DNA of the meat taken from Cseripko’s freezer in 1997 to deer entrails, flesh and blood found by Horvat’s body.

A statistician testified at Cseripko’s trial that it was 47,000 times more likely that the evidence came from the same deer than from two different deer.

Police believed Horvat shot and gutted the deer, and as he dragged the animal to his tree stand, Cseripko came up on him and shot him, then took the dead animal. Lisa Middleman, who represented Cseripko during his trial, argued that prosecutors only proved that her client stole Horvat’s deer.

During questioning from his attorney, Dianne Zerega, Cseripko told Judge Gerald R. Solomon that he is innocent. Through the appeal, Cseripko hopes to get a new trial. Solomon will rule at a later date.

Cseripko testified Friday that Middleman advised he not take the stand in his own defense because it would “confuse matters.” Cseripko also alleged that she told him his prior record would be revealed if he took the stand. He has a prior conviction for carrying a concealed firearm.

Middleman said she never told Cseripko that his prior conviction would be revealed, and testified that the decision to have him not testify was threefold.

She indicated that in her discussions before the trial with Cseripko, he did not have an adequate explanation for the facts presented by prosecutors, that his continued dislike for Horvat was “evident” and she believed a jury would read his demeanor poorly.

“I didn’t think the jury would like or believe him,” Middleman testified.

She said that the decision not to take the stand was made jointly, under her advice.

Had he taken the stand, Cseripko testified he believed that he could have clarified certain things for the jury.

“There were so many things that were twisted and not true at all in my trial,” he said.

During questioning from District Attorney Nancy D. Vernon, Cseripko said he wasn’t sure if it was merely hindsight that caused him to regret not taking the stand.

“It’s not hindsight, but again, maybe it could be hindsight. I was under the impression when you hire an attorney they work for you to help you. That wasn’t the case,” he said.

To prevail on a post-conviction appeal, Cseripko has to prove that Middleman was ineffective -not just that he regrets not taking the stand.

He also said that Middleman failed to call character witnesses and other witnesses on his behalf. Had his neighbor been called, Cseripko said the man would have testified his son purchased the dye and the .243-caliber ammunition police found at his home at the neighbor’s yard sale.

Prosecutors argued that because they did not find the gun that Cseripko must have gotten rid of it. He contended during his testimony Friday that there never was a gun.

Middleman testified she could not recall if Cseripko ever talked to her about that man being called as a potential witness.

Zerega also presented testimony from schoolteacher Carmen Grego, who said he would have testified about Cseripko’s reputation for non-violence and truthfulness if called as a witness.

Middleman testified that had character witnesses been called to testify about Cseripko’s reputation, she was worried that prosecutors may be able to use the prior gun charge to rebut their testimony.

She said a private investigator found that some people Cseripko suggested as character witnesses were either unavailable or did not want to get involved in the case.

Zerega questioned Middleman about whether she challenged the use of deer DNA before the trial, and Middleman said she did not. She later testified that she knew that animal had been used in criminal cases in other states, and it had survived legal challenges about its sufficiency.