Nov 14, 2016 By Mark Hofmann mhofmann@heraldstandard.Com 4 min read

Attorneys on both sides in the wrongful conviction suit brought by David Munchinski have filed motions asking a federal judge to dismiss the case or rule outright in Munchinski’s favor.

In 1986, Munchinski, 61, formerly of Latrobe, was convicted of the 1977 murders of James Alford and Peter Gierke in Bear Rocks, Bullskin Township. He was sentenced to life in prison, but his convictions were overturned by a federal magistrate after years of appeals. In June 2013, homicide charges against him were dismissed for good.

He sued, claiming former Fayette County prosecutors Gerald R. Solomon and Ralph C. Warman withheld key evidence during his trials that could have swayed a jury to acquit him. Munchinski’s attorney Noah Geary also named the estate of former state police Sgt. George Fayock, claiming that he, too, withheld evidence as the supervisor of the troopers who handled the investigation.

Attorney Thomas Pellis, representing Solomon and Warman, said the federal judge handling the case should rely upon state court decisions that routinely upheld Munchinski’s convictions.

“Even though (Munchinski’s) conviction was impugned when the federal district court granted him habeas corpus relief in 2011, that decision did not obliterate the myriad of underlying legal holdings, findings of fact, and conclusions of law that were rendered in more than two decades of Pennsylvania trial court and appellate court litigation involving Munchinski,” Pellis wrote.

Pellis wrote that Solomon and Warman, as the district attorneys who prosecuted Munchinki’s case, are immune from the lawsuit because they were executing prosecutorial functions at the time. Both Solomon and went on to serve as judges. Solomon still presides over cases as a senior judge; Warman is retired.

Pellis also argued that Munchinski had access to any evidence he now claims was withheld, and that he could not claim malicious prosecution because the charges against him were supported by probable cause — the legal standard necessary to file charges.

The attorney also contended that the suit was filed beyond the two-year statute of limitations that would allow Munchinski to sue.

Senior Deputy Attorney General Mary Lynch Friedline, who represents Fayock’s estate, made similar arguments, contending “there is no evidence that Fayock withheld any exculpatory evidence in this case.

“Sgt. Fayock did not investigate these murders; nor did he meet with prosecutors about police reports or assist the district attorney’s office with preparing discovery responses,” Friedline wrote.

She also noted that Fayock did not file the charges against Munchinski and contended he cannot be held liable for alleged malicious prosecution.

Geary also filed a motion for summary judgment in Munchinski’s favor, claiming the men engaged in ongoing and “outrageous violations” of Munchinski’s constitutional and civil rights.

One of the issues brought up in both state and federal appeals of Munchinski’s criminal case was an allegedly tape recorded statement made in 1982 by Richard Bowen, who would go on to be a key prosecution witness. Prosecutors contended Bowen, who has died, was not tape recorded during his first interview with police.

Court rulings, however, found that that the tape existed and should’ve been produced. Because it was not, Geary wrote, Warman and Solomon are not entitled to immunity from suit.

Bowen claimed he witnessed Munchinski and another man kill Alford and Gierke; however, court rulings also cite a police report that established Bowen may have been in Oklahoma when the men were killed.

Geary also argued that the former prosecutors are not entitled to immunity because they violated Munchinski’s right to a fair trial, failed to provide all exculpatory evidence after the 1983 mistrial, violated a judge’s order to examine evidence and failed to produce exculpatory evidence to the court in 1992 post-conviction hearing.

Geary contended Fayock was directly or personally involved in withholding evidence. In a 2003 post-conviction hearing, Geary wrote, Fayock testified “that he took a very direct role in murder cases such as (Munchinski’s)” and in another appeal hearing testified that he was directly involved in the decision to charge Munchinski.

Geary also addressed the defense argument that Munchinski has not come forward with evidence to prove his innocence, and cannot show any harm done to him that would entitle him to damages.

Geary wrote that there’s no requirement that Munchinski prove his innocence, and “any purported evidence of his guilt is inadmissible and cannot be raised by the defendants.”

U.S. District Judge David S. Cercone will make a ruling on the motions at a later date.