Westmoreland County prosecutors claim overwhelming circumstantial evidence led to the conviction of a Jeannette man who is serving three life sentences for the murders of his wife and two young children three decades ago.
But a judge is now weighing whether to overturn James Young’s conviction.
Following a jury trial in 1995, Young, now 57, was found guilty of setting fire to his family home on 14th Street in Jeannette. His 26-year-old wife and their two children, 3-year-old and 7-month-old boys, died.
Young has maintained his innocence and for the last several years has challenged the conviction based on claims that the jury finding was based on now discredited science related to arson investigations. Attorneys for the Pennsylvania Innocence Project claim a new jury evaluating the case based on current investigatory standards would not have voted to convict Young.
Prosecutors have conceded that standards involving how fire investigations are conducted and evaluated have changed, but in court documents filed week they defended the conviction, saying even with revised scientific protocols that would likely render the cause of the fatal blaze as “undetermined,” Young would not have been acquitted.
“Outside of the evidence that the jury heard from commonwealth witnesses that the fire was incendiary in nature, the jury heard overwhelming circumstantial evidence … the verdict can stand on the basis of circumstantial evidence alone,” prosecutors wrote.
Witnesses at Young’s trial testified to both a troubled relationship between Young and his wife in which there were multiple reports of domestic abuse. Neighbors in the Youngs’ neighborhood also testified to what they said was his “odd” behavior on the night of the fire in June 1993. According to court records, witnesses described Young’s actions as inconsistent with someone whose family was trapped inside a burning home.
Neighbors said Young was seen outside the home multiple times, in differing stages of undress. He refused to enter the smoke-filled home to either alert his sleeping family or attempt a rescue, they testified. One witness, according to prosecutors, said Young was spotted on the home’s roof and appeared to see his wife through a fogged up window without attempting a rescue. The home’s windows had previously been opened but on the night of the fire, witnesses testified they were uncharacteristically closed.
Investigators claimed while being questioned after the fire, Young gave multiple accounts of how he discovered the blaze and of his actions both inside and outside of the house as it burned and suggested it started as result of his wife’s actions.
Police witnesses days after the fire said Young appeared to be more concerned with locating a checkbook and his car keys to facilitate his move to Florida rather than the death of his family, according to the court filing.
Assistant District Attorney Leo Ciaramitaro and Elizabeth Ranger argued testimony from arson investigators, using current scientific standards to label the fire’s cause as undetermined, does not constitute new evidence, a prerequisite for Young to receive a new trial.
The defense has argued that because expert testimony at Young’s trial described the fire’s cause as arson is enough to overturn the conviction.
Prosecutors claim that evidence of the fire’s origin remains unchanged — such as where the fire started and how it moved throughout the home. They said the underlying facts of the investigation remains unchallenged.
“The defendant presented no evidence other than the concession made by the commonwealth that the experts today would determine the fire was undetermined and not arson. He cannot show there is any likely change in the verdict because the overwhelming circumstantial evidence remains the same,” prosecutors argued.
Westmoreland County Common Pleas Court Judge Christopher Feliciani will decide if Young will receive a new trial. There is no timetable for a ruling.