Nancy Lowry
New Castle News
NEW CASTLE —
The Pennsylvania Superior Court has agreed to hear the appeal that could get Jordan Brown’s case into juvenile court.
“The superior court contacted us to say they are accepting the Jordan Brown appeal for consideration,” attorney David Acker said yesterday. He and attorney Dennis Elisco are representing Jordan.
“This does not mean they have granted the appeal,” Acker said. “Rather ... they found enough merit in the issues that they agree it is something they should hear and decide.”
Acker said he has not yet received a schedule for when the briefs are due or when arguments will be heard.
Elisco said he is “encouraged and relieved” to receive the news.
“We still have a way to go,” he said. “But now we are appealing the ruling of (Lawrence County Common Pleas Court President Judge) Dominick Motto.”
On March 29, Motto ruled Jordan should be tried as an adult.
Jordan, 12, was charged as an adult with two counts of criminal homicide in the deaths of his father’s pregnant fiancée, Kenzie Marie Houk, 26. Houk was shot in the back of the head on Feb. 20, 2009, in the New Beaver Borough farm house she shared with Jordan, his father, and her two daughters.
Jordan was 11 at the time.
If convicted as an adult, Jordan could face a sentence of life in prison without parole. If the case is moved to juvenile court and he is found to have been responsible for the deaths, he could remain in custody until his 21st birthday.
Jordan has been in the Edmund L. Thomas Adolescent Center in Erie since March 2, 2009.
The case was appealed to the superior court on June 11.
“This is a two-step process,” Elisco explained. The defense first had to obtain Motto’s approval.
On March 29, Motto ruled Jordan is not amenable to juvenile rehabilitation because he has not taken responsibility for the offense. He ordered the case to remain before the common pleas court.
Motto’s ruling followed testimony by expert witnesses provided by the defense and senior deputy state attorney general Anthony Krastek, who is prosecuting the case.
The defense argued that Motto’s decision required the child to admit guilt in order to determine if he would be responsive to juvenile rehabilitation. They said this “involves a question regarding the presumption of innocence and the fundamental right against self-incrimination.”
The defense said if the appeals court reversed Motto’s decision and transferred the case, it would “avoid the necessity for a jury trial and the possibility of having a now-12-year-old child sentenced to a life sentence and imprisonment in an adult penal institution ...”
At the time, Krastek said he believes Motto had made the right decision. He still believes that.
“The judge followed the law,” he said Wednesday morning.
Krastek noted that in Motto’s order allowing the case to go before the superior court, “he maintained the commonwealth is correct, but he is asking the superior court for direction, for input.”
In May, Motto granted permission for the defense to appeal his ruling to the higher court.
At the time, Elisco said with Motto’s participation in the appeal, “there is a better chance that the superior court will agree to hear the case.”
A woman who answered the phone in the office of the prothonotary of the superior court yesterday said the case was “just transferred” to the appeals court.
“We must receive documents and briefs,” she said. “It could be a year before the hearing is scheduled.”
