Jury finds Pitcairn man guilty of 1st-degree murder in slaying of Uber driver

A jury found Calvin Crew guilty of first-degree murder on Monday, exactly three years after he forced Uber driver Christina Spicuzza to ferry him across eastern Allegheny County for nearly an hour before marching her into the woods in Monroeville and fatally shooting her.

Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Edward J. Borkow­ski acknowledged that grim anniversary moments before the jury foreman announced the verdict.

Crew, 24, of Pitcairn will be sentenced May 5 to a mandatory term of life in prison without parole.

He had no visible reaction as the panel of six men and six women rendered their verdict — guilty of murder, robbery, kidnapping, tampering with evidence and carrying a firearm without a license.

The jury deliberated for about four hours Friday and briefly Monday morning before announcing their verdict.

Spicuzza, 38, a mother of four from Turtle Creek, was killed Feb. 10, 2022, while she was driving for the rideshare service.

Spicuzza, who had started her shift for Uber just after 7 p.m. that evening, picked Crew up at his home about 9:15 p.m. and drove to his destination on Dersam Street in Penn Hills.

However, according to dashcam video from inside Spicuzza’s car, Crew, wearing a black face mask, hat and hood, shifted to the middle of the back seat, pulled out a gun and pressed it to the back of her head.

He ordered her to drive. Then, about 50 minutes later, they stopped on Rosecrest Drive in Monroeville where, Allegheny County Deputy District Attorney Emma Schoedel told the jury, Crew marched Spicuzza into the woods, and shot her once in the back of the head.

Investigators used cellphone tracking information, Uber records and the recovered dashcam video to identify Crew as the killer.

There remains a pending lawsuit between Spicuzza’s mother, as the administrator of her estate, and Uber for wrongful death and negligence.

The suit, filed in Common Pleas Court, was stayed while the criminal case was pending.

‘Smear tactics’

At trial, which began Feb. 3, the defense told the jury that if they believed Crew was the shooter, he was, at worst, guilty of second- degree murder — killing someone during the commission of another felony.

Both first- and second-degree murder carry mandatory sentences of life without parole in Pennsylvania, although a current state Supreme Court appeal looks to change that.

Prosecutors on the case initially sought the death penalty against Crew. Just days before jury selection was scheduled, however, they reversed their decision.

During closings Friday, Schoedel told the jury that Crew was guilty of premeditated, first-degree murder.

“He had multiple chances to make this anything short of a lethal endeavor,” Schoedel said. “He killed Christi because he wanted to.”

Following the verdict, the Allegheny County Public Defender’s Office, which represented Crew, declined to comment, citing a gag order that was issued in the case March 15, 2022.

However, it is typical court procedure for a gag order to be lifted when the verdict is rendered, since its purpose is to limit prospective jurors from being influenced by outside statements.

On Monday afternoon, Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr. issued a statement in which he criticized the public defender’s office for their arguments in court.

“This was a brutal, senseless execution of a mother of four children simply trying to earn a living,” Zappala said.

“Given the overwhelming evidence supporting this prosecution and the jury’s verdict, it is extremely disappointing to have the public defender’s office attempt to characterize the investigation and prosecution as racial and political.

“Nothing could be further from the truth, and it is despicable that they would stoop to this level simply because the evidence of guilt was so overwhelming. Their smear tactics were despicable and unprofessional.”

During his opening statement, Chief Deputy Public Defender Andy Howard told the jury that detectives had tunnel vision during the investigation.

“I am afraid for Calvin,” he said then. “Race is a factor here. A white woman allegedly killed by a young, Black man.”

Howard told the jury Zappala used the case to further his political agenda when he ran for reelection in 2023.

Schoedel immediately objected, which was sustained by the judge.

Before resting the defense case Friday, Howard called county homicide Det. Greg Renko to testify.

He attempted to ask Renko several questions regarding race, including how many times he had posted on his own personal Facebook page about Black men committing violent crimes.

But at each juncture, Schoedel objected, and the judge sustained.

Pending lawsuit

Zappala said in his statement there was a “mountain of evidence” against Crew.

“On the other hand, the public defender had no evidence of racial or political motives in the charging and prosecution of this case but felt free to just make it up to promote their employer’s political agenda,” the statement continued.

“The rules of professional conduct do not provide defense counsel free (rein) to go into court and make baseless claims supported by nothing but desperate speculation. Those who engage in and condone such behavior should be held professionally accountable.”

Zappala went on to say the public defender’s office falls under the jurisdiction of the county executive.

“We hope the county executive does not condone such unprofessional conduct nor condone one agency under her jurisdiction making baseless claims against another,” Zappala said.

In response, Abigail Gardner, a spokeswoman for County Executive Sara Innamorato, said, “We do not discuss political strategy or legal strategy with the public defender’s office.”

David A. Harris, a University of Pittsburgh law professor, said Zappala’s statements are troubling.

“A defense lawyer is entitled to make any argument for which they have a good-faith basis,” Harris said. “They have an obligation to put forth the best argument for their client. It doesn’t mean the jury buys it or the judge likes it.”

If the prosecution believed the argument had no merit, he continued, the place to dispute it is in court.

“If the district attorney believes the public defenders in this case did something unprofessional, he would be in his right to send something to the disciplinary board,” Harris said. “He’s accusing them of fabricating a defense. That’s a very, very serious thing.”

If Zappala believes the defense is attempting to promote the political agenda of the public defender’s office, Harris said, “I’d like to see the evidence of that.”