Steven+Slutzker+case+2011-2


 * Back**


 * Background Story**

A man named Steven Slutzker was convicted for the murder of a 29 year old man named John Mudd. Originally Mr. Slutzker had a liable alibi that clearly showed his innocence, but in the year 1992 Mr. Mudd's son, Mudd Jr, stepped up and claimed to having a flashback of witnessing Slutzker kill his father all those years ago at the age of five. During the trial Sltuzker was not able to bring his key witness to testify his alibi from their home in Texas, so ultimately the prosecutors were able to meet the burden of the case and have Mr. Slutzker charged. The Judge states that the jury did not believe Mudd Jr.'s testimony but they did believe that Slutzker was spotted speaking with Mrs. Mudd immediately after the murder. Slutzker did get a re-trial in 2007 because he was not able to get his witness to testify and there were police reports that were found to have been withheld. The files showed that the witness testimony about Slutzker speaking with Mrs. Mudd right after the murder was false, it was really another neighbor. However, Slutzker was again convicted because, this time, the jury did believe Mudd Jr.'s testimony.


 * Case Evidence**

__Prosecution:__ __Defense:__
 * Slutzker was having an affair with Mr. Mudd's wife, Arlene
 * Mudd Jr. claims to have had a flashback of a repressed memory: blood was everywhere, and Slutzker was the killer
 * At the 2007 retrial: claims the wind blew the snow and covered the footprints
 * Slutzker was in McKeesport during the time of the murder with a witness alibi
 * Slutzker's van there was covered with new fallen snow, no footprints going to or from the car, or near his home
 * Domenic Mangano, a Wilkinsburg police officer, testified that when he arrived at the scene Mudd Jr was alseep on the couch and didn't wake up until he carried him away; he had no idea of his father's death
 * Mudd Jr. didn't know Slutzker until the police officer suggested the name
 * A Catholic Social Services Counselor testifies to witnessing Mudd Jr's family repeatedly telling him Slutzker was the murder
 * Says that Mudd Jr. said "he would kill him" when he turned 21; he was 21 when he reported having remembered him repressed memory
 * At the 2007 retrial: Key eyewitness for Sluztker's alibi provided video tape evidence


 * Guilty or Not Guilty?**

We feel that he is not guilty because of the amount of evidence that the prosecutors did not disprove. The evidence of the defense clearly outweighs the evidence of the prosecutors; the testimonies and evidence of the key witness prove that Mr. Slutzker was not even on the premises at the time of the crime. The testimony from the Catholic Social Services Counselor also implies that the witnesses Mudd Jr. obviously had a motive that would aggravate him to give a false testimony against Mr. Slutzker, meaning that the key piece of "evidence" that the prosecutors have is wrong.

@Action Plan Article