ShareThis Page
Defense lawyer argues against death penalty in Daugherty case |

Defense lawyer argues against death penalty in Daugherty case

| Wednesday, July 21, 2010 12:00 a.m

The attorney for one of six people charged with the February torture slaying of a mentally handicapped Greensburg woman wants a judge to rule that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment.

In a pre-trial motion filed Wednesday morning, Melvin Knight, 20, also contended that he cannot get a fair trial in Westmoreland County because of the intense media scrutiny that has followed the case since the body 30-year-old Jennifer Daugherty was found Feb. 11 stuffed in a trash can and left in the snowy parking lot at Greensburg Salem Middle School.

Defense lawyer Jeffrey Miller argued that capital punishment is unconstitutional and wants Westmoreland County Judge Rita Hathaway to bar the prosecution from seeking the death penalty.

Last month Westmoreland County District Attorney John Peck announced he would seek the death penalty against Knight, along with 20-year-old Amber Meidinger and 24-year-old Ricky Smyrnes for their role in the Daugherty slaying. The prosecution is not seeking the death penalty against three other co-defendants, Peggy Miller, 27, Robert Loren Masters, 36, and Angela Marinucci, 18.

Police said Daugherty was tortured for nearly three days before she was stabbed to death. The defendants allegedly tied Daugherty up with Christmas lights amd made her drink concoctions of cleaning products, urine and feces before she was killed.

All six defendants were charged with first-degree murder.

Categories: News
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.