Etna man’s attorney says client killed 2 in self defense |

Etna man’s attorney says client killed 2 in self defense

Megan Guza
Josh Huber of Etna in police custody in 2016.

No one in Judge Thomas Flaherty’s courtroom Monday disputed the fact that Josh Huber shot and killed two people in his Etna apartment last year.

The question posed to the jury was whether the shootings of Derek Schindler and Melissa Zuk were justifiable self-defense or first-degree murder.

“This is not a ‘whodunit’ case,” said defense attorney Michael Waltman in his opening remarks Monday in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas. “We know who did it.”

Huber shot Schindler, 30, and Zuk, 22, just after 7 a.m. in his third-floor apartment. Zuk was shot once in the chest, the bullet tearing through both lungs, her heart, her esophagus and her aorta, according to Allegheny County Medical Examiner Dr. Karl Williams. Schindler, a Shaler resident, was shot once in the head — the bullet piercing his skull and brain — and once in the chest, which tore through both lungs and his aorta.

Detective Patrick Kinavy, who headed the Allegheny County Homicide Unit’s investigation into the killings, said there was blood on walls in the apartment’s living room, as well as on the ceiling above the body of Schindler, who was found sprawled across a couch.

Zuk, of McCandless, was found slumped in a crouching position near the front door.

Kinavy testified the only signs of a struggle in the apartment were an overturned kitchen chair and a piece of the sectional couch that was askew. Waltman noted in crime scene photos there was debris on the floor between the couch and coffee table. Kinavy, however, noted that drinks on the coffee table remained undisturbed.

Cassandra Weaver, now 22, was in Huber’s apartment the night of the shootings. She testified that she’d known Zuk for years — “she was my best friend,” she said.

Weaver said Zuk and Schindler — who she hadn’t previously met — picked her up from a relative’s home and drove to Huber’s apartment.

Weaver said she and Zuk and Schindler drank and did cocaine, and Huber talked to her about the Bible and asked her if she believed in God. Then he offered her a sleeping pill.

Weaver testified that taking the pill was the last thing she remembered until she woke up in the hospital.

Donald Cox, who lived directly above Huber’s apartment, heard an argument and ensuing gunshots that morning. He called 911. He said he heard a man’s voice shouting, “Get out, get out, get the (expletive) out.” A woman kept shouting, “(Expletive) you,” he said.

Then he heard four to seven gunshots.

After he called 911, Cox grabbed his 12-gauge shotgun and charged down the stairs, stepping past Weaver in the apartment doorway, believing she was dead. He saw Zuk and Schindler, then noticed Huber standing in the kitchen facing away from him. He had a bloody nose when he turned around, he said. Cox trained his weapon on Huber and ordered him to the ground.

At one point, he said, he tried to kick Huber’s cellphone from his hand. He missed, he testified, and kicked him in the face. He kept Huber at gunpoint until police arrived.

Waltman told jurors that Zuk and Schindler attacked Huber, noting it was “two against one.” He said evidence would prove Huber had been beaten.

“Josh calls 911 and asks for help,” Waltman said. “He doesn’t run, he doesn’t leave. …This is a case that asks you if you can’t protect yourself from being thrown around in your own home… when can you?”

Testimony is expected to continue Tuesday morning.

Megan Guza is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach her at 412-380-8519, [email protected] or via Twitter at @meganguzaTrib.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.