Jeannette man’s murder convictions, life sentences vacated over debunked fire science
Share this post:
A Westmoreland County judge on Friday ordered a new trial for a former Jeannette man serving three life prison sentences for the first-degree murders of his wife and two young children in 1993.
Common Pleas Court Judge Christopher Feliciani vacated the convictions and sentences of James Young, 57, who prosecutors claimed set a fire to his family home and failed to rescue them as the blaze raged. The judge said prosecutors relied on now debunked science used to investigate the cause of the fire to gain convictions at Young’s trial in 1995.
Young’s wife, Gina Marie; his stepson, Shaun Holden, 3; and Joshua, the couple’s 7-month-old baby, were killed in the fire.
Young, who for the last several years has been represented by the Pennsylvania Innocence Project, contended changes to national guidelines used to investigate the origins of fire have been rewritten over last three decades. In that case, using the current criteria, the Jeannette blaze would have been classified as being of undetermined cause.
Defense attorney Elizabeth DeLosa did not respond to a request for comment on the judge’s ruling.
Young has most recently been serving his sentences at the State Correctional Institution in Fayette County. He is expected to be transported to the Westmoreland County Prison, where he will await his retrial. The judge said Young in ineligible to be released on bail as he still faces a potential life prison sentence if convicted again.
Prosecutors unsuccessfully sought a death penalty for Young following his first trial.
Melanie Jones, spokeswoman for Westmoreland County District Attorney Nicole Ziccarelli said the prosecution is considering its next move.
“The District Attorney’s office is reviewing the opinion and order of the court, and evaluating the possibility of an appeal,” Jones said in an email.
Young maintained his innocence during his trial in 1995.
Prosecution experts testified at trial the fire was arson and set by the spread of an accelerant. Throughout the appeals process, prosecutors defended the convictions as valid while conceding the origin of the fatal fire could now not be labeled as arson. Enough circumstantial evidence remained that included Young’s actions that night, his history of domestic violence and circumstances of the fire to substantiate the guilty verdicts, prosecutors said.
The judge ruled the change in fire science constituted new evidence that warranted a retrial.
“The court finds that the fact that the commonwealth’s experts provided an extremely powerful and strong opinion during the trial that the fire was intentionally set, which based upon the substantial changes in fire science would no longer be the opinion had the trial occurred today, cannot be overlooked,” Feliciani wrote.
“The court finds that despite the copious circumstantial evidence in this case the newly discovered evidence and change in the commonwealth’s position now provides defendant with an opportunity to present an affirmative defense.”
According to evidence at the trial, investigators found gasoline cans outside the house and traces of fuel soaked into the diaper of Young’s infant son. Arson investigators testified during trial that the pattern of burns in the house suggested the blaze was intentionally set and that arson dogs detected evidence that an accelerant was used.
Meanwhile, witnesses testified they saw Young in his underwear walk on the roof of the house as it burned, and that he refused to rescue his family as his wife pleaded for help from an upstairs window.
Craig L. Beyler, a private fire investigator with a Maryland consulting firm hired by the defense testified during a 2021 appeal hearing that experts have come to accept new standards in probing a blaze’s origin.
Those standards now call for limiting how dogs are used in the early stages of fire investigations and downplay the use of burn patterns to determine if a blaze was intentionally set, Beyler testified.
Changes related to investigatory standards is a growing concern in the courts, according to former federal prosecutor and Saint Vincent College Law Professor Bruce Antkowiak.
“This is something that is happening more and more that science once accepted as gospel is now debunked,” Antkowiak said, noting that fire science, bite mark evidence and even fingerprint evidence has led to questions about years old convictions.
He suggested legislation that sets standards for how courts consider certain kinds of evidence could be a solution to deal with evolving scientific standards.
“Experts have a tremendous affect on a jury and it’s going to take a very substantial change in the way we allow scientific evidence to come into the courtroom,” Antkowiak said.