Archive

Prosecutors want information about DNA that landed man new trial in New Ken rape case | TribLIVE.com
Westmoreland

Prosecutors want information about DNA that landed man new trial in New Ken rape case

Rich Cholodofsky
ptrKunkoA052518
Tribune-Review
John Kunco smiles as he is released from prison after serving 26 years for the rape of a New Kensington woman.

Westmoreland County prosecutors want more information about blood and DNA evidence found at the scene of a New Kensington rape before deciding whether to retry a man imprisoned nearly 28 years for the sexual assault.

A judge freed John Kunco, 52, formerly of Harrison, Allegheny County, on May 23 and ordered a new trial after vacating his 1991 rape conviction . A jury convicted Kunco of savagely raping a 55-year-old woman in her apartment the year before.

Kunco, who has always maintained his innocence, was sentenced to 45 to 90 years in prison.

Prosecutors have until late August to decide whether to pursue another trial or appeal the ruling that vacated his conviction.

Assistant district attorneys Barbara Jollie and Jim Hopson on Tuesday asked for a hearing to clarify the nature of blood and DNA evidence that Kunco’s lawyers from the New York-based Innocence Project contend prove he did not commit the crime.

Defense testing found Kunco was not a source of blood or DNA deposited on a blanket recovered at the scene.

Should it be proven that the blood and DNA came from a male, it could affirm that someone other than Kunco was present at the rape, Hopson said.

No evidence was presented at last month’s hearing, although the defense previously had submitted detailed testing results of the blood and DNA — materials they contended were from an unidentified male. That finding is evidence that should be certified through testimony, according to the prosecution.

Scientists who performed the tests for the defense have refused to cooperate with prosecutors, Hopson said.

“The commonwealth contends that the record must be reopened and testimony taken to address that issue,” prosecutors wrote.

The defense has long argued that Kunco’s conviction was based on discredited science that linked him to healed bite marks found on the victim. Prosecutors said the victim was blindfolded during the attack but that she identified Kunco as her rapist by his distinctive lisp.

When the case was originally prosecuted, DNA evidence was not part of the investigation. Subsequent tests of a frayed electrical cord used in the attack and a blanket revealed blood and DNA evidence that could be used to acquit Kunco, the defense contends.

Innocence Project attorney Karen Thompson said it is clear that Kunco is not guilty of the rape, citing the physical evidence as well as an alibi that suggested he was not at the rape scene.

“This is a puzzling effort to undermine the (dismissal) of Mr. Kunco’s conviction, but it is better late than never that the commonwealth has become interested in legitimate forensic sciences,” Thompson wrote in an email Tuesday.

In vacating Kunco’s conviction, Common Pleas Judge Christopher Feliciani said the evidence to support that finding was “overwhelming.”

Rich Cholodofsky is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at 724-830-6293 or [email protected]

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com 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.