CLEARFIELD – Two experts’ opinions and reports were scrutinized during Tuesday’s session of the Andrew Callahan re-trial.
Callahan faces charges that stem from the Nov. 5, 1997 murder of then 15-year-old classmate Micah James Pollock in the Pine Run area of Beccaria Township, Clearfield County. More specifically, he has been charged with criminal homicide, including murder of both the first and third degrees and involuntary manslaughter. He has also been charged with aggravated assault and abuse of a corpse.
According to prior GantDaily reports, Callahan was twice-convicted for the shooting death of Pollock. He was found guilty of first-degree murder in October 1998.
However, the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the initial conviction while a jury question was not answered properly. Callahan stood trial a second time and was found guilty of first-degree murder again in May 2007.
But in December 2008, the state’s Superior Court vacated Callahan’s re-sentence to life in prison. He was ordered a third trial as the jury wasn’t given the correct instructions during the re-trial.
Clearfield County District Attorney William A. Jr. called to the stand Dr. Frederick Fochtman, director of the forensic science and law master’s program at Duquesne University, to provide an expert opinion as to whether Callahan was under the influence of drugs to the degree that he could not form a specific intent to kill.
It was during review of Fochtman’s qualifications that defense attorney Ron Valasek requested that Fochtman not be allowed to testify as an expert witness. That request was denied by Clearfield County President Judge Fredric J. Ammerman.
Fochtman testified that he reviewed transcripts from witnesses from the first trial, as well as police reports and interviews with the witnesses. He noted that the witnesses indicated that Callahan did not appear to be under the affects of drugs. Fochtman also testified that Callahan had made statements that he had smoked marijuana and crushed and snorted micro-dots, or mescaline. Fochtman then explained that micro-dots are similar to LSD, but not as potent an hallucinogen.
Fochtman gave his opinion, based on review of witness testimony and police interviews, that Callahan was not under the influence of controlled substances to the extent that he could not form the intent to kill.Under cross-examination Valasek asked Fochtman if he would have changed his opinion if he knew the other witnesses may have been high at the time of their interviews with police.
“Not necessarily,” said Fochtman.
Valasek then questioned what information Fochtman reviewed. He noted that he did not have the information with him at that time. He said the information was in his car. Ammerman asked that Fochtman provide the information to the attorneys for their review prior to their lunch break.
After the lunch break, but before bringing the jury back, legal arguments occurred regarding those notes. Valasek made a motion for the exclusion of Fochtman as an expert and to strike his testimony. He said Fochtman relied on “sanitized” parts of transcripts from the first trial and that he had no police reports. He also argued that Fochtman could not use Callahan’s testimony from the first trial.
Ammerman disagreed, stating that Callahan gave his statements voluntarily. Ammerman said he was unaware of what documents Fochtman was provided or not provided. Shaw said he remembered sending Fochtman police records and transcripts. However, he said it was possible that his office only sent him the transcripts pertaining to Callahan’s condition in regard to intoxication. Fochtman said that he remembered receiving police records from Shaw’s office, but that he did not have them with him. He was questioned as to his report and whether it cited the sources of the information contained within. It was indicated that it did not.
Ammerman eventually denied Valasek’s motion, noting that the jury would have to determine the weight of his testimony.
With the jury seated, Valasek continued his cross-examination of Fochtman and the alleged use of drugs by Callahan’s peers. He questioned Fochtman about the information he received from the DA and whether it colored his opinion. Fochtman said it was what he had to work with. Valasek also questioned Fochtman about the effects of marijuana and hallucinogens and if people could function normally after taking them. Fochtman indicated that it was possible.
Shaw went back to the issue of Fochtman’s report and the notes during redirect. Shaw asked Fochtman, excluding all other information, if the information contained in the transcript samples enough for him to form the opinion that had on Tuesday. Fochtman answered, “Yes.”
While not as heavily scrutinized by the defense as Fochtman, Dr. Hamada Mahmoud was also questioned about his opinion. Mahmoud, a forensic pathologist, provided an opinion as to the cause and manner of Pollock’s death. He testified that an external exam revealed a single shotgun wound, about two inches in diameter, to the center of the back. He stated there was also blunt force trauma and brush abrasions on Pollock’s body. He stated that the shotgun pellets traveled from front to back, and in an upward direction.
He said an internal exam revealed that Pollock’s carotid artery had been severed, and that shotgun pellets had spread in Pollock’s neck. An enlarged X-ray reproduction showed a large concentration of pellets inside Pollock.
Under direct examination Mahmoud testified that the cause of Pollock’s death was a gunshot wound to the back and neck, and the manner was homicide. Valasek countered on the topic of manner, saying that Mahmoud had no idea of knowing how that person was killed. He brought up the issue of determining whether the death was a homicide or an accident. Mahmoud agreed that it could have been accidental, but that determining the manor of death is a combination of police investigation and pathology.
“I can agree with law enforcement, or we can disagree,” said Mahmoud.
Curtis and Melvin Brink, both loggers at the time of the incident, testified that they were traveling Pine Run Road when they saw a Ford Bronco II parked outside of a gate. Melvin testified that he saw two people walking into the woods, and he believed they were hunting. He also said that the thought one had a gun. Curtis testified that he recognized the Bronco as Joe Callahan’s.
Cpl. Joe Dipitro of the Pennsylvania State Police testified that on Nov. 9, 1997 he was assigned to collect evidence at a coal site on Pine Run Road. He said he collected a garbage can lid and pine branches. He said he was called back to the site on Nov. 11, 1997 for a deceased body found in a beaver pond. He testified that Pollock was in the water, face up, with his upper clothes pulled over his head and rope around his ankles.
Cpl. Jeff Lee of the PSP testified that on Nov. 12, 1997, he was called from the barracks in Punxsutawney to assist the Clearfield Barracks with a warrant service in Beccaria Township. He indicated that they went to the Callahan residence, and on his way up a short, steep driveway, he noticed rope hanging from the undercarriage of a Chevrolet Cavalier. He took that into evidence, and also took rope used to hang clothes from in the back yard. Also taken into evidence was a .12 gauge Mossberg shotgun. He was presented with photos, which he testified were interior shots of the Callahan Bronco II, which had shotgun shells inside.
Jack Wall, a retired forensic firearm and tool markers examiner, testified that he examined the shotgun taken into evidence at the Callahan residence. He stated that through testing, the gun could not be fired without pulling the trigger and that it had the expected weigh-trigger pull of five pounds. There was some discussion regarding the spent shotgun shell, which had contained copper-coated lead shot. He said none of the other shells had that kind of shot, and that its wadding was inconsistent with the kind of shell it was.
Forensic scientist Bruce Tackett testified that he examined the rope taken into evidence from the Cavalier, Pollock’s body and the Callahan residence. He said they could have had a common origin and they were about the same.
Following testimony Shaw indicated that the commonwealth will rest their case. Valasek also indicated that Callahan will testify on his own behalf.
