Fayette judge grants convicted killer new trial after forensic dentist calls own testimony ‘junk science’ |

Fayette judge grants convicted killer new trial after forensic dentist calls own testimony ‘junk science’

Joe Napsha

A former Connellsville woman serving up to 30 years in state prison for a 2001 homicide was granted a new trial Thursday because a forensic dentist whose testimony on bite-mark analysis helped convict her called it “junk science” during a hearing.

Fayette County Judge John Wagner said he had “no problem” granting a new trial for Crystal D. Weimer, 38, who is serving 15 to 30 years for her role in the January 2001 death of Curtis Haith, whose badly beaten body was found outside his apartment with a gunshot wound in the face.

Wagner vacated Weimer’s 2006 conviction on third-degree homicide and criminal conspiracy charges, as well as her prison sentence. Weimer has a right to a new trial within 120 days, he said.

District Attorney Jack Heneks could not be reached for comment on whether his office plans to refile the charges.

After listening to testimony from Dr. Constantine Karazulas of Bridgeport, Conn., during the 40-minute hearing, the judge said the dentist could not testify to a reasonable scientific degree of certainty about the validity of bite-mark analysis.

Karazulas said advances in scientific knowledge since the 2006 trial have rendered bite-mark analysis essentially “junk science” and that now he would not analyze bite marks or render an opinion on comparisons.

During Weimer’s trial, Karazulas testified that a bite mark on Haith’s hand matched the dental impression that Weimer gave police. His testimony, along with that of alleged accomplice Joseph C. Stenger, 32, of Everson helped convict her.

Stenger claimed Weimer lured Haith outside to be beaten by two unidentified black men, but Assistant District Attorney Anthony Iannamorelli Jr. said Thursday that Stenger has changed his story a number of times.

Karazulas told the judge he started to doubt the validity of bite-mark analysis in 2008 when the National Academy of Science found the technology is not scientific and that several people among a group of 100 might produce the same bite mark.

Weimer’s attorney, Jeff Bresh, said after the hearing that he was prepared to call 12 witnesses to testify during a two-day hearing. But once Karazulas said he wouldn’t testify to the validity of the science of bite-mark analysis, “it was game, set, match.” Bresh, of Pittsburgh, is handling the case pro-bono for the Pennsylvania Innocence Project.

Bresh asked that Weimer be released on unsecured bond. Wagner said he would consider bond, but she will be returned to the State Correctional Institution-Cambridge Springs until that issue is decided.

Iannamorelli said he will talk to Heneks before deciding whether to oppose unsecured bond.

After Weimer filed her own petition for a new trial, her case was taken up by the Innocence Project this spring, said Nilam Sanghvi, a senior attorney for the Philadelphia-based group.

Weimer was charged with homicide twice in Haith’s death. The first charges were dropped in April 2004 when Judge Ralph C. Warman ruled the state didn’t produce enough evidence to establish its case. Charges were refiled in September 2004, shortly after Stenger pled guilty to a conspiracy to commit homicide and agreed to assist prosecutors.

Joe Napsha is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 724-836-5252 or [email protected].

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.