CLEARFIELD – After deliberating for about two hours on Thursday, a jury found a DuBois man guilty of murder in the third degree for killing his wife’s lover.
Glen “Chet” Chester Johnston, 61, was accused of shooting Jude Srock, 46, also of DuBois, in a parking lot on South Franklin Street on March 17, 2022.
Previous testimony and a police recording of an interview with Johnston revealed that Srock was having an affair with Johnston’s wife.
Prior to making the decision, the jury asked President Judge Fredric J. Ammerman to re-read the requirements for first-degree murder, third-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter and malice.
In addition to murder in the third degree, Johnston was also found guilty of two counts of aggravated assault, two counts of simple assault and recklessly endangering another person.
The penalty for third-degree murder is 20 to 40 years in prison, according to previous reports.
Johnston, who has remained in the county jail, will be sentenced within 90 days.
At the conclusion of the four-day trial, Ammerman called this a “very interesting” and “difficult” case as he thanked the jury for being attentive throughout the proceedings.
During closing arguments on Thursday, William A. Shaw Jr., attorney for Johnston, explained why this case went to trial when there was no doubt that Johnston shot Srock.
The jury was being asked to determine what level of criminal homicide Johnston should answer for: first-degree murder, third-degree murder and voluntary or involuntary manslaughter, he said.
The first-degree murder convictions require malice, a specific intent to kill and premeditation. For third-degree the prosecution needed to prove he intentionally used a deadly weapon on a vital body part.
Shaw called this case a classic example of voluntary manslaughter where Johnston’s actions were not premeditated, but a decision was made “in the heat of passion” such as when a man finds his wife in bed with another man and kills him.
He noted that during a police interview shown to the jury, Johnston repeatedly stated he did not mean to kill Srock but had “snapped.”
Johnston went to the lot to talk to Srock and when he confronted him, Srock was drunk, high and angry, Shaw said.
Johnston had testified that Srock had “puffed up” his chest before speaking with him and insulting his ability to take care of his wife.
“He used his words as a sword to poke a hole in his (Johnston’s) heart.”
Shaw went on to say, “I think it was emotionally too much for him and he exploded. That’s manslaughter, not murder one.”
He pointed out that Johnston’s story never changed about what happened when he could have claimed self-defense or an accident, but he didn’t.
“Forty years of marriage boils down to this one thing,” this mistake.
First Assistant District Attorney Leanne Nedza in her closing said when Johnston went to see Srock, he “wanted to take care of the problem and eliminate the competition, and he certainly did that.”
She also reviewed the differences between the various charges. She explained that malice includes things a reasonable person would not have done.
“It is not reasonable to take a loaded gun when you contact your wife’s lover.”
(Johnston had testified that he was afraid he would be beaten up by Srock and his friends because of a previous encounter and he had the gun for protection.)
“You can’t slaughter someone in broad daylight in downtown DuBois and then say you didn’t mean to do it.”
She questioned the trigger for his sudden intense feelings when Srock made the same comment about not taking care of his wife during the other encounter.
“What was different on March 17,” she asked. This is when his wife told him that she was in love with Srock. This is a classic love triangle and the solution was not to approach his competition with a loaded gun, she said.
She replayed part of Johnston’s interview with police during which he explained how he took the gun from his glove compartment, and then loaded it with ammunition from the center console while waiting in the lot for Srock.
She noted that Johnston and his wife are still together and added that was because he “eliminated the problem.”
“He is probably not a horrible person, but he made a horrible decision.”
