Robert Ferrante Death: An appeal by a former University of Pittsburgh researcher convicted of cyanide murder was denied on Thursday. Continue reading to learn more about his demise.
Follow newslangmedia for more upadtes.
Death Of Robert Ferranate
Robert Ferrante, 73, was convicted of murdering Autumn Klein in April 2013. He’s serving a life sentence at Houtzdale.
Klein, 41, died at home with her husband on April 17, 2013. After her shift as a women’s neurologist at UPMC Presbyterian, she had been drinking.
Klein was pronounced dead three days after the event. Blood tests confirmed she died of cyanide poisoning.
Investigation Of Robert Death
The investigative team found that Ferrante, who supervised a Pitt research lab, ordered cyanide days before his wife died.
William Difenderfer and Wendy Williams petitioned for a venire modification. They abandoned the request and picked a local jury a month before trial.
Ferrante was convicted despite defense attempts. 2014 trial. His arguments questioned the evidence against him. J.A. Continue reading to know more about robert ferrante death
Manning, the trial judge, dismissed all of Ferrante’s charges save one, which needed a hearing: whether Ferrante’s defense counsel had a reasonable reason for withdrawing Ferrante’s venire request. Ferrante’s venire was refused.
Ferrante claimed in his appeal, “I was hounded, stressed out, and offered false promises.” On July 6, following Manning’s retirement, Judge Bruce Beemer presided.
On September 2, 2014, the parties considered “getting a jury in Dauphin County,” but the defense favored Allegheny County. Beemer managed.
Ferrante’s appeal attorney, Chris Eyster, did not call Difenderfer or the defendant to establish whether the venire modification was purposeful.
The prosecution argued that Ferrante’s post-conviction appeal needed this step before proving poor defense counsel. Ferrante didn’t do so.
Ferrante had to prove at the hearing that Difenderfer had no legitimate reasons to waive the change of venire and that the decision hurt him. Beemer recommends dismissing the appeal.
According to what Beemer wrote, he did not satisfy his burden and so is not eligible for relief since he did not accomplish that.
He wrote that the “coordinate jurisdiction rule” prevents him from revisiting problems previously settled by another judge of the same court. The “coordinate jurisdiction rule” applies to him.
Beemer noted in his response that “These additional allegations are not only inadmissible, but they also contravene the court’s briefing instruction.”