Bucks County prosecutors last week filed a lengthy brief aimed at keeping Frank R. Chester behind bars, if not executed.
Chester and co-defendant Richard R. Laird brutally slashed to death gay artist Anthony Milano in 1987.
Milano’s body was found in a wooded area of Bristol Township, with most of his throat gone. Shortly before his death, he was seen leaving a nearby tavern with Chester and Laird.
Prosecutors called it an anti-LGBT hate crime, and the men were sentenced to death in 1988.
But Chester claims his trial attorney, Thomas Edwards Jr., was so dysfunctional that he had legal representation in name only. Chester claims Edwards had multiple conflicts of interest, including a pending DUI charge, and a “severe” substance-abuse problem.
Edwards allegedly “pulled his punches” while defending Chester, in order to curry favor with prosecutors and avoid a jail term for his DUI charge.
Chester’s first-degree murder conviction already has been voided due to improper jury instructions by Judge Edward G. Biester Jr.
Now, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals must decide whether to void Chester’s remaining convictions, including second-degree murder and kidnapping.
In a 90-page brief filed Sept. 3, Bucks County prosecutors insisted that Chester had a fair trial.
“[Chester] did receive a fair trial and the reliability of the verdict was not undermined by an alleged conflict of interest,” the brief stated. “Edwards presented a reasonable and vigorous defense of [Chester] in the face of the daunting evidence against him.”
The brief contended that “picking apart” the performance of Edwards could open the door to unfair scrutiny of other defense attorneys.
“Were the courts willing to cull through the personal lives of attorneys whenever a defendant alleged such a ‘conflict,’ the floodgates would open, allowing a virtual witch hunt into the private lives of every counsel who ever lost a case, or had a dissatisfied criminal defendant for a client,” the brief stated.
The brief also blasted Chester’s claims that Edwards was ineffective because he failed to delve into Laird’s alleged sexual abuse at the hands of his father. Chester contends the alleged sexual abuse contributed to Laird’s murderous rage against Milano, and that Edwards was remiss in not fully investigating its effect on Laird.
But prosecutors refuted that contention.
“The evidence showed that [Chester] too made anti-homosexual remarks the night of the murder,” the brief noted. “As such, focusing on prejudice against homosexuality as the motive would have done little to benefit [Chester].”
Prosecutors added in the brief: “There is zero basis on which to conclude that such an investigation of [Laird’s] childhood was warranted, [nor] that it would have led to admissible evidence against Laird,” the brief stated. “Furthermore, whether Mr. Edwards did not, either deliberately or inadvertently, make particular arguments or focus on specific pieces of evidence in his closing argument can hardly be a basis for concluding that Mr. Edwards was ‘pulling his punches.’”
The brief also argued that Chester raised his conflict-of-interest claims more than a year past the legal deadline to do so.
Stephen B. Harris, a Bucks County prosecutor, expressed optimism that Chester’s appeal will be rejected.
“We believe Mr. Chester and his attorneys didn’t raise the conflict issues in a timely manner,” Harris told PGN. “Therefore, his appeal should be dismissed on that procedural ground. But if it isn’t dismissed on that basis, we believe the lower court’s decision that there was no conflict will be upheld.”
Harris emphasized the brutal nature of the crime.
“Mr. Chester and Mr. Laird committed a savage murder, and they must be held accountable,” he said.
Chester’s attorneys have 14 days to submit a rebuttal to the prosecution’s brief.
Meanwhile, Chester, 45, and Laird, 51, remain on death row in Pennsylvania state prisons. Laird’s appeal for a new trial remains pending in the state Supreme Court.