ShareThis Page
Judge denies Tatar new trial |

Judge denies Tatar new trial

| Tuesday, January 13, 2009 12:00 a.m

A Parks Township man’s bid for a new trial in the 2003 starvation death of his 4-year-old daughter was denied by an Armstrong County judge.

President Judge Kenneth Valasek denied numerous claims of ineffective assistance by counsel made by James Tatar, 46. Tatar is serving a life sentence for withholding food from his daughter, Kristen Tatar, resulting in the girl’s death.

During three days of hearings in September, Tatar and his appeal counsel Jeffrey Miller alleged that Tatar’s trial counsel, Joseph Caruso, provided ineffective assistance.

Tatar wrote in a post-conviction appeal that Caruso was not qualified to try a capital case under a rule that was enacted on Nov. 1, 2004, the day trial testimony began. Prosecutors had sought the death penalty against Tatar.

Valasek wrote in his opinion filed Thursday that the rule was not violated during Tatar’s trial. Caruso was appointed about 15 months prior to the rule’s effective date.

Caruso and Valasek agreed that the rule did not apply to Caruso when the issue was raised prior to trial, the judge noted in his opinion. A second attorney with expertise in death-penalty cases worked with Caruso during trial preparation.

“In the court’s opinion, defendant had the benefit of highly-skilled, highly-motivated and extremely-zealous trial counsel,” Valasek wrote. “Trial counsel fought very hard on defendant’s behalf and did an excellent job.”

Kristen Tatar’s mother and James Tatar’s girlfriend, Janet Crawford, testified during Tatar’s trial that Tatar withheld food from the girl. Kristen Tatar was tied to a bed in the attic of their home for a week without food or water before she died, Crawford testified.

Crawford is serving a life sentence for her role in the girl’s death.

Kristen’s body was found wrapped in garbage bags inside a cooler on Aug. 7, 2003, near the couple’s Kepple Hill home in Parks Township. Investigators testified that Kristen died about one month earlier.

Tatar testified at his trial that he last saw Kristen in May 2003 and believed she was in a home for children with behavioral problems.

Valaske also denied other claims alleged by Tatar of ineffective assistance by counsel.

Tatar had alleged Caruso failed to object to erroneous and prejudicial juror instructions and did not request certain instructions or explanations, both of which Tatar argued affected the trial’s outcome.

Even if the ineffective assistance of counsel claims were meritorious, a new trial would still not be awarded because the evidence of Tatar’s guilt was so strong, Valasek wrote.

Valasek also denied Tatar’s claim that evidence discovered after the trial warranted a new trial.

Tatar claimed that the validity of documents provided by the Westmoreland County Children’s Bureau affected a doctor’s testimony during the trial. Evidence was presented during the September hearings that the documents were altered, and Tatar and his counsel argued that the doctor’s opinion may change.

Tatar also alleged that more than 1,000 pages of notes handwritten by a caseworker were never reviewed by the doctor.

Valasek wrote in his opinion that some of the allegedly altered documents would not have any basis on a doctor’s opinion or warrant a new trial.

“There is no reasonable probability that the after-discovered evidence would have made a difference in the outcome of the defendant’s trial,” Valasek wrote.

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.