The state Superior Court has denied William F. Smithson’s request for a new trial in the murder of Jason Shephard.
In a 20-page opinion issued Dec. 22, a three-judge panel of the court stated that Smithson received a fair trial in 2008.
The judges who issued the opinion are Christine L. Donohue, John T. Bender and Eugene B. Strassburger 3d.
Smithson, who is openly gay, couldn’t be reached for comment.
After Smithson’s appeals are exhausted on the state level, he’s permitted to file appeals on the federal level, according to court records.
In 2008, Smithson was convicted of first-degree murder in the death of Shephard, who was Smithson’s colleague at an electronic-billboard manufacturer.
Delaware County prosecutors say Smithson strangled Shephard during the course of trying to rape him in 2006.
However, Smithson maintains his innocence, and says a third man in his home when Shephard died wasn’t adequately investigated.
That man, F. Bruce Covington, was convicted of drug-related charges stemming from the incident. But prosecutors say he didn’t kill Shephard.
Smithson claims that his trial attorney, G. Guy Smith, served him ineffectively by failing to ensure an adequate investigation of Covington.
But the Superior Court judges said Smith conducted a thorough investigation of Covington.
“I chased [Covington] harder than anybody I’ve chased in my life,” the judges quoted Smith as stating.
The judges also noted that Smith followed all investigative tips conveyed by Smithson.
Covington invoked the Fifth Amendment, declining to testify during Smithson’s trial. Smithson faulted Smith for not objecting to a state trooper reading Convington’s pre-trial statements to jurors.
Smithson said the trooper’s delivery gave undue credence to Covington’s version of events. But the judges said Smith made a reasonable decision to have the trooper read Covington’s statements to jurors, since Covington declined to testify.
Smithson also contends that Smith was ineffective because he didn’t object to serology and toxicology reports being introduced into evidence.
Smithson says the reports should have been excluded, because the serologist and toxicologist who performed the tests weren’t present to be cross-examined.
Smithson contends he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to confront his accusers, due to their absence.
But the judges said Smithson wasn’t prejudiced by their absence, noting that their representatives were available for cross-examination.
Additionally, Smithson said Smith should have objected to damaging statements by a relative and a friend that were read into the record during his trial. Not having the individuals present for cross-examination also violated his Sixth Amendment right, Smithson contends.
But the judges said Smith made a reasonable decision to keep the individuals off the witness stand, because they may have uttered more statements damaging to Smithson.
“[Smith’s] strategy had a reasonable basis designated to effectuate his client’s interest,” the judges stated.
Smithson, 49, remains incarcerated at a state prison in Huntingdon.