ShareThis Page
Judge declares mistrial as Fayette man acquitted of assault, threat charges |

Judge declares mistrial as Fayette man acquitted of assault, threat charges

Amanda Iacone
| Thursday, August 8, 2002 12:00 a.m

A Fayette County man accused of attempting to burn his wife and child in bed was acquitted of four charges Wednesday, while a jury was deadlocked over six others.

During an alleged barrage of threats on April 6, police said defendant Keith D. Shipley also was shot by his mother-in-law, who was not charged.

Fayette County President Judge William J. Franks declared a mistrial because jurors could not agree whether Shipley, 31, of 585 Stewarton Road, Mill Run, had threatened to kill seven friends and relatives after an argument with his wife.

Jurors found Shipley not guilty of reckless endangerment of his wife and daughter, simple assault of his wife and terroristic threats made toward his daughter.

Charges of attempted homicide were dismissed Tuesday by Franks.

After arguing with his wife, Amanda, Shipley allegedly dragged her out of a bed, bruising her arm. He then tried to set the bed on fire while his wife and daughter, Hannah, were in the room.

Sandra Shipley, Amanda Shipley’s mother, said she shot Keith Shipley after he menaced her.

The jury could not decide if Shipley threatened the six people in his mother-in-law’s house.

Prosecutor Mark Mehalov said he did not know if the district attorney would retry the case.

Shipley remains in jail in lieu of $100,000 bond.

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.