GANT: Attorney for Accused Murderer Asks Judge to Suppress Evidence

CLEARFIELD, Pa. (GANT) – An attorney for an accused murderer was in court this week asking a judge to suppress evidence in the case.

(Pictured above: Glen “Chet” Chester Johnston)

(This article was provided by our News Partner GantDaily.com.)

In March, DuBois City police say Glen Chester Johnston, 60, shot Jude Srock, 46, also of DuBois, in a parking lot near 26 S. Franklin St.

Johnston is charged with criminal homicide, two counts each of aggravated assault and simple assault as well as recklessly endangering another person.

His attorney, William A. Shaw Jr., filed an omnibus pre-trial motion asking for statements made by Johnston to police, be suppressed and claiming there was not enough evidence presented at the preliminary hearing to charge him for the crime.

On Monday a hearing was held before President Judge Fredric J. Ammerman regarding the issues in the motion.

During that hearing, District Attorney Ryan Sayers played video footage of Johnston being taken into custody by state police and being transported to the DuBois City police station for questioning.

In the videos, Johnston does admit to killing Srock. At this point, he had not been read his rights and the officer in one of the videos advised him that he doesn’t have to say anything.

Johnston appears very distraught and is babbling about what happened and why he allegedly shot Srock over an affair with his wife.

His interview after he was read his rights in the interview room at the station and questioned was also played during the hearing.

The officers talking with him offer him water, advised him they are recording the interview and are very patient with him, because he was cooperating, said Assistant Police Chief Dustin Roy during his testimony.

Johnston again appears very upset in this video and answers all the questions he is asked.

“I had no plans for this at all,” he told them.

He explained he was threatened the night before by Srock and others who “surrounded him” and when he went to confront Srock in a parking lot the day of the murder, he took the gun for protection.

Johnston states to the officers that Srock made a comment, something insinuating that he was “not man enough to take care of his wife” and this is why he pulled the gun out.

It went off and then Srock allegedly asked if he was going to shoot him. He then put the gun to Srock’s head and pulled the trigger.

“I didn’t mean to do it. I’m not that type of person. I wouldn’t hurt anyone,” Johnston told police.

He went on to explain although he didn’t see Srock with a weapon, he felt threatened because of what happened previously.

“I didn’t want to kill him,” he said and later added “I only wanted him to admit it (the affair).”

As the interview continues, Johnston agrees to have his hands checked for gun shot residue while visibly upset.

When they continue to question him, he says: “I’m not hiding anything from you guys.”

The hearing continued on Wednesday afternoon with Roy answering questions about the interview and an earlier phone call between Johnston and his wife.

He explained that he was talking with Johnston’s wife when her phone either rang or vibrated. She responded by looking at the phone and stating that it was Johnston.

She put the phone on speaker, without his asking, Roy said, and he was able to hear their conversation.

In his motion, Shaw contends that Roy “unlawfully listened” to the conversation and recorded it without authorization, violating the state’s wiretapping and electronic surveillance control act. He asks the information from the call be suppressed.

In his testimony, Roy stated that he did not record the call.

Shaw questioned why Roy continued to question Johnston for over an hour after he admitted to the crime.

Roy responded that they were trying to get more information on the specifics of the situation and the weapon.

Shaw’s motion claims Johnston’s statements during the interrogation were the “product of coercion and duress” and asks the judge to suppress the interview.

Ammerman gave both sides 45 days to issue briefs on their position regarding the motion with an additional five days to provide rebuttal briefs.


Copyright © 2024 EYT Media Group, Inc. All rights reserved. Any copying, redistribution or retransmission of the contents of this service without the express written consent of EYT Media Group, Inc. is expressly prohibited.

Comments are temporarily closed. A new and improved comments section will be added soon.