Roger Peter Buehl is a
prisoner on death row at SCI-Pittsburgh
- Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. When Roger was
arrested, he was just 22 years old, and lived with his
mother and sister in Pottstown, Pennsylvania. To be frank,
he was not a model citizen; he’d had his
scrapes with the law, due mostly to a drug problem.
But, that doesn’t make him a murderer.
Unfortunately, Roger’s lifestyle and
acquaintances made him an easy patsy for crimes he did not
commit.
The crimes
charged to Roger are a robbery and murders which
took place in 1982 in a Villanova, Pennsylvania residence.
He was tried for these crimes in January
of 1983. All of the evidence presented at the trial
was circumstantial. There was no
confession, no identification,
and no physical or testimonial evidence to
place Roger at the crimes. But there were, however, many
suspicions and negative innuendoes implied by testimony.
The prosecution’s main witnesses against Roger were
two drug addicts, Fran Kelly and
Joe Dwyer. Their self- serving testimonies
purported to link him to their car and
gun — both appar-
ently used in the crimes. Unfortunately, Roger
was very poorly represented by his
trial attorney; though Roger
testified to his innocence, there was little he could
do to refute the innuendoes
and falsehoods. Consequently, the
jury rejected his defense, convicted him and
imposed the death sentence.
It was not
until "1992" that a voluntary attorney, Mary
Ennis, invest-
igated Roger's case and found previously-concealed evidence,
exposing perjury.
Ennis discovered that one of the
prosecution’s primary witnesses, Fran Kelly,
had failed a
pre-trial polygraph (lie-detector) test
of his story, but was, nevertheless, encour-
aged by the prosecution. The other chief
prosecution witness, Joe Dwyer, had mad
pre-trial statements which were
directly con-
trary to his trial testimony.
Furthermore, the prosecution had negotiated with
both Kelly and Dwyer for their testimony; the deals
made included improper considerations and favors for
them, and release from all charges
holding them in prison. All of this new
evidence — heretofore concealed — originated
from the prosecution’s own files. When these
matters were brought to light, Joe
Dwyer recanted his trial
testimony and confirmed that the
prosecution’s investigator first threatened, then
coerced, and finally bribed him (and Kelly)
to give false testimony. Dwyer’s recantation was,
in turn, supported by other, independent
evidence. Additionally, Ennis also uncovered
other evidence which could and should have been used
at Rogers trial — including a partial alibi — all
pointing towards inadequate representation.
In 1993, Roger
attempted to present this new evidence
to the state court reviewing
his case. But, the evidentiary hearings were
a farce; the judge guided the prosecution, framed
questions and objections for the prosecutor, and even
held an ex parte (private conference with the
prosecutor and a witness. (The prosecutor
formerly responsible for Roger’s
case had since become a member of the
court, and that may have added to the judge’s bias.)
Ultimately, the state court either barred, rejected, or
minimized the import of the newly-
discovered evidence. On appeal,
the state supreme court did acknowledge that
Roger’s trial was fundamentally unfair but, incredibly,
refused to order a retrial.
Roger has
now been on death row for 14 years.
The federal district court recently vacated
his death sentence, but the prosecutors have promised
to impose a new death sentence in any event,
when the case is remanded to the state courts. Roger is
appealing for a new trial with the assistance
of appointed counsel. Unfor- tunately, the courts
in this country are powerfully influenced by the
arguments, debates, and politics of the death penalty.
For further information about Roger and his situation write to:
Death Penalty Defense Fund
c/o Schuylkill Friends Meeting
37 North Whitehorse Road
Phoenixville, PA 19460 USA
or contact his Defense Fund Coordinator,
via e-mail at:
Questions or comments...
