Synopsis of Plea Hearing for Nathan Herring
July 8, 2010
I am giving a rather detailed account here as I think most people (including myself) don't have a true idea of what really occurs in court proceedings and even though the media has covered it well, given the personal involvement, we tend to want to know everything.
In an effort to avoid the death penalty, Nathan Herring pled guilty today to two counts of First Degree Murder [yes, "pled" is actually the correct spelling and usage]. In exchange for the guilty plea, Herring was spared the death penalty as well as the "conspiracy to commit murder" charge. Additionally, the prosecutor agreed to allow the two life sentences to run concurrently (as opposed to consecutively). This means that when Herring ultimately dies in prison, he won't be required to serve the second life sentence.... Consecutive life sentences are often issued to avoid (early) parole, but as Prosecutor Mike Lucas explained to us, in Pennsylvania "life without parole" means exactly that: there is absolutely no possibility of parole for Herring; thus, there is no fantasy or hope for him to cling to and no fear or dread to plague our minds. Either way, he is locked away for the rest of his natural life!
Scheduled for 1:00, the hearing got under way at about 1:50 and lasted almost an hour. Nathan Herring sat in his orange prison jumpsuit with handcuffs and leg irons shackled together around his waist. To his left sat his attorney, Lisa Middleman, and behind him two police officers stood guard. On the right side of the aisle was the Assistant District Attorney, Mike Lucas with a couple others from his office. Directly behind them sat four others who would soon be identified as the police officers and detectives who were involved in the investigations since 1999. There were about 10 Muha family members and friends along with the victim rights advocate and several members of the press. There did not seem to be anyone from Herring's family in attendance.
Judge John DiSalle began the hearing by presenting the purpose and the terms of the plea agreement. In presenting the case, Lucas noted that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania would forgo the aggravating circumstances and not push for the death penalty and then briefly recounted the basic facts and evidence of the case. He reminded the court that at his initial arrest, Herring admitted to being present at the time and even assisted in the search. He then called on the four officers originally involved in the case to "swear to the facts". Trooper Wilson, Detective Lelless, Detective Sloan and Corporal Ashton each replied in the affirmative to the same three questions: Are the facts presented true and correct? Were you made aware of the plea arrangement prior to your appearance here? and Are you in agreement with the plea arrangement?
Lucas then presented the Victim Impact Statements from Aaron's mom, Kathleen O'Hara and his uncle, Leonard Land, as they were unable to attend the hearing. Afterwards, Brian's brother, Chris and his mother, Rachel Muha, were sworn in and gave their statements. Before Chris was sworn in, Middleman objected to the manner in which he and Rachel would speak; she requested "pursuant to the statute..." they [Chris & Rachel] "direct their comments to the court not the defendant." The judge replied he would redirect as necessary but, even though Chris and Rachel spoke directly to Nathan the whole time (saying "you" instead of "he"), the judge never interjected. Rachel, Chris and Kathleen spoke of the grace of God and seeking to bring good out of this evil (see the Hope & Grace page). Details of their statements will be given later but some specifics can be read now in the news links on the homepage (the Observer-Reporter and Herald Star are best). Click here for Rachel's full statement.
After the victim impact statements, Judge DiSalle asked Middleman there was anyone to speak on behalf of Herring. When she replied "no," the judge proceeded to ask Herring a series of questions to ensure he was entering his plea with full knowledge and consent; Herring replied in the affirmative after each one. The list given here is accurate but may not be verbatim: You have read your explanation of rights? You understand it? You've had the opportunity to ask your attorney questions? You're 29 years old? Will a 10th grade education? You're able to read, write and understand English? You understand the charges against you? that you're charged with 2 counts of criminal homicide? which includes 1st, 2nd, 3rd degree murder and manslaughter? you understand 1st degree murder carries the penalty of life without parole or the death penalty? You understand you have a right to a trial? that you would be involved in jury selection? you would be presumed innocent until proven guilty? You're willing to waive your right to a trial and enter a plea?
He continued to the effect of: you're pleading guilty to first degree murder, a premeditated act, in exchange 2 life sentences to run concurrently as well as concurrently with your Ohio sentence? (emphasis added.) You understand after you complete your sentence in Ohio, you will return to Pennsylvania for "the rest of your natural life... with no possibility of parole."
Did you hear the factual basis of the case? "yes, sir." Do you agree with the facts? "yes, sir." Do you realize the same evidence would be presented in a trial? "yes, sir." Do you accept the factual basis? "yes, sir." Do you take responsibility for your actions? "yes, sir." Do you admit what you did? "yes, sir."
Are you under the influence of drugs or alcohol? (I think he asked if he has been under the influence recently...) Answer: No. Are you under the influence of promises or threats? No. Being/been treated for mental or emotional condition? No. On any medications? No. Are you satisfied with your counsel? Yes. Are you willing to waive your rights and enter a plea of guilty? yes.
Is there anything you want to say? Herring spoke briefly: at this time in my life....I feel worse...11 years after. I apologize to the families.... (like) I said 10 or 11 years ago, I know apologies don't mean much, but I feel worse...as time goes on... I don't have too much to say. (this is what he said, but it may not be exact so I don't want to put it in quotes; the dotted spaces are not missing chunks, just missing link words/transition phrases.) His lawyer spoke briefly saying she and Nathan were grateful to the families for accepting the plea agreement.
Before closing the hearing, Judge DiSalle spoke to Nathan saying that from what he's heard here and at Yarbrough's trial last year, he is sure Brian and Aaron would have "given you what you stole from them." There was no reason for you to kill them; it was "absolutely senseless." He referred to the statements by Chris, Rachel and Kathleen telling Nathan he hoped he would come to appreciate their words; he also echoed their comments telling him: you must "turn yourself around..." and he hoped "as you age, your hard heart will soften and the true impact will sink in" and hopefully you can do some good and work to prevent someone else from doing the same thing, including your own son (again, the part not in quotes is accurate but not verbatim). Mark Law with the Herald Star has a quote.
In concluding the proceedings, the judge stated: the Court will accept the plea. on the first count (murder of Aaron Land), Herring is sentenced to prison for the "rest of [your/his] natural life without the possibility of parole." on the second count of first degree murder of Brian Muha, the same sentence will run concurrently with the 1st count as well as his sentence in Ohio. After finishing that sentence he will return to PA until the end of his life. [Herring still has about 50 years or so for the other evils he committed that night.]
The final point the judge made was in reference to Herring's right to appeal this plea arrangement. He was quick to add that his options are limited and gave the four issues he would have grounds for appeal:
1. His "voluntariness of the plea" - could argue he didn't understand his rights, or what he was waiving or he was coerced, etc. (which is exactly why the judge asked him all those questions - it would be quite difficult to argue that.)
2. "The jurisdiction of this court" - could argue the PA court didn't have the right to decide the case - but the judge then said, that is exactly "the reason we're here." that issue had already been argued and settled.
3. legal matters - I didn't quite catch this one as he said it quickly and didn't explain -will do research and let you know.
4. Effects of counsel - argue his attorney was incompetent, did not serve his best interests, etc. (difficult to prove, would need some gross, overt negligence or misconduct on her part.)
He then asked if there was anything else from either side and closed the proceedings.
Well - that's it really. It's late; I will add a few concluding comments later (and proofread); I'm sure Rachel will have some thoughts as well which I will also post. Thanks, PK