A Canadensis man sentenced to death for the 2014 ambush that killed one state trooper and wounded another is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his case.
Eric Matthew Frein’s death sentence was unconstitutional because emotional testimony prosecutors presented went far beyond what is permitted by law, his attorney, Michael Wiseman of Philadelphia, says in court papers. Frein’s sentence should also be overturned because he was denied his right to an attorney when he was first questioned, Wiseman says.
The arguments are similar to issues Frein previously raised in an unsuccessful his appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Wiseman contends the court erred in denying the appeal because it failed to address constitutional issues.
The U.S. Supreme Court hears only a small fraction of cases referred to it each year. It will decide on whether or not the hear Frein’s appeal after Pike County District Attorney Ray Tonkin files a reply, which is due Thursday.
Frein, 36, was convicted in April 2017 of first degree murder and other charges and sentenced to death for killing Cpl. Bryon K. Dickson II and wounding Trooper Alex T. Douglass in a sniper attack outside the Blooming Grove State Police barracks on Sept. 12, 2014.
Wiseman argues the death sentence should be vacated because Tonkin violated Frein’s rights under the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which limits evidence in the death penalty phase to information about the victim and the impact their death had on their family.
The evidence included the testimony of 10 witnesses, a 15-minute video of Dickson’s graduation from the state police academy and information regarding his wife’s difficulty in giving birth to one of their children. That unfairly inflamed the jury against him, he argues.
The state Supreme Court considered the same issue, but dismissed the appeal, finding that decisions on evidence admissibility are up to the trial judge. Wiseman contends the court should have evaluated the evidence based on the constitutional challenge, but did not.
Wiseman also argues police violated Frein’s rights when they refused to allow his attorney to see him once he arrived at the barracks shortly after Frein was taken into custody. Frein made incriminating statements during the questioning.
The state Supreme Court agreed police violated Frein’s rights, but said it was a harmless error because evidence against him was so overwhelming he would have been convicted even if his statements were suppressed.
Wiseman argues the court failed to consider the impact Frein’s confession had on jurors during the death penalty phase, which raises constitutional issues that are not subject to the “harmless error” analysis.
“Frein’s confession was used to show the casual, detached and apparently uncaring man who killed one state trooper and wounded another, in cold blood,” Wiseman said. “In a very real sense, the confession was the tent pole from which the rest of the Commonwealth’s theory of the case hung.”
Contact the writer: tbesecker@timesshamrock.com; 570-348-9137; @tmbeseckerTT on Twitter