A flurry of motions in DA Jeffrey Thomas sexual assault case may change the trial

Decisions made by a trial judge in a pre-trial motion hearing Thursday in a Somerset County courtroom could affect the upcoming trial of District Attorney Jeffrey Thomas, who is accused of sexual assault. The judge could also determine if Thomas will spend part of his time behind bars to prepare for his defense with his Pittsburgh legal team.

What role do pretrial motions play?

Motions are applications to the court made by the prosecutor or defense attorney, requesting that the court make a decision on a certain issue before the trial begins. These pre-trial motions are made to secure or exclude evidence, to change venue or where the trial is held, or to end the case.

Background of the case pursuant to the motions

Thomas is accused of entering an adult acquaintance's home on the evening of Sept. 18 without permission and remaining in the residence even after being told to leave. Police said he sexually and physically assaulted a woman.

On Sept. 22, charges of sexual assault, indecent aggravated assault, indecent assault, strangulation, simple assault and criminal trespass were brought against Thomas.

He had been free after making his $5,000 bond in that case. The bond stipulated he was to have no contact with the woman or any person on the witness list by both parties in the case.

Upcoming:A Conemaugh Township teacher resigns, charged after exposing himself in his office

After an April 29 hearing, Thomas' bond in the sexual assault case was revoked by Cambria County Senior Judge Timothy Creany Jr. based on a motion from the attorney general's office that called Thomas a danger to the community after he was charged with harassment and two traffic summaries for allegedly ramming his truck into a vehicle driven by a witness in the sex assault case against Thomas. The incident occurred in the early morning hours of March 31.

Then on May 20, charges were sent to Cambria County trial court that involved a domestic dispute in which Thomas is accused of punching his wife, Amy, in the head numerous times while she was on FaceTime with her half-sister. The woman went to the state police and reported the alleged incident April 9, according to court documents. The incident occurred in May 2021 while the pair were traveling from Johnstown to Windber, according to police. A woman listed by state police as a witness to the video came forward to report it April 9, saying she took photographs of physical injuries.

Both Jeffrey Thomas and Amy Thomas deny the charges.

Sending a message: Acting DA: Baker conviction sends 'strong message' to domestic abusers

Thomas' license to practice law was suspended by the state Supreme Court for reasons that have not been disclosed by the disciplinary arm of the high court. Because of the suspension, Thomas can no longer have access to anything to do with the Somerset County District Attorney's Office or in the courthouse itself, unless for his own case. His pay was suspended.

If found guilty by a jury, Thomas could spend several years in prison.

Pretrial motions in the Thomas case

Here are the synopses of the motions filed by the court's deadline. It was at 8:47 a.m. Monday, according to Stacey Witalec, communications director, Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts.

One ending:'Six years won't cover it': Victim's family reacts to Kline's third-degree murder sentence

Some motions are by the attorney general's office's prosecuting team of Patrick Schulte and Tomm Mutschler, both senior deputy attorney generals, and others are by Thomas' defense team of Ryan Tutera and Eric Lurie, both of Pittsburgh. Creany is appointed to this case, will precede over the pre-trial hearing beginning at 9 a.m. Thursday and make decisions whether to approve the requests.

Motion to suppress

Two conversations between Thomas and the alleged victim were recorded, unbeknownst to Thomas, by police both at his home and during a conversation they had at Primanti Bros. restaurant the next day, according to the motion. The defense claimed those actions were carried out in violation of the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. No warrant was issued in either case with the wiretap intercept, which was required, according to the defense team in the motion. The defense requested that the judge issue an order to suppress the "illegal wiretap recordings" and "the words uttered" by Thomas.

Discovery motion

The defense filed a motion to compel discovery (evidence) that included employment records of one of the prosecution's potential witnesses, who is employed by Windber Police Department. In the motion, Thomas' attorneys question the witness' credibility and called him "an indispensable witness in this case, because he was the conduit between (the alleged victim) and the state police." The defense added "...and, frankly, caused the initiation of the charges against the defendant."

The defense also requested an order for the prosecution "to produce the complete data extraction of the electronic telephone device bearing telephone number known to the parties as (the alleged victim)."

Additionally, the defense team asked for results of scientific examinations, such as DNA and medical. If the prosecution intends to call an expert witness in the field of sexual assault reporting and trauma, then the prosecution must fulfill their obligation to turn over the expert's report for review, the team wrote in the motion.

In a notice, the attorney general told the court of an intention to call an expert witness, board-certified forensic psychologist Veronique Valliere, to testify to the impact of sexual violence or domestic violence on victims during and after being assaulted. A motion was also filed asking the judge to exclude opinion evidence regarding credibility of the victim.

In a separate motion, the prosecution requested that the judge exclude evidence of protection for abuse petitions, that were filed against Thomas and his wife, immediately after the charges were filed, but were then withdrawn by the woman before any court hearing on the matter.

The body camera motor-vehicle recorder video from an incident involving Thomas and one of the prosecution's potential witness was requested by the defense, as was any information as to any investigation findings regarding possible ex parte (one-sided) communication involving Somerset County Court Administrator Tammy Escalera.

Motion to remove

The defense requested that the judge remove Escalera from dealing with the case. They claim that discovery evidence revealed that Escalera engaged in ex-parte conversation with a Somerset County judge and a prosecution witness regarding the defendant and the witness obtaining a protection from abuse petition. The witness worked in the court administration office at the time and later did file a PFA. She withdrew her PFA before a hearing was scheduled.

The defense called Escalera's actions "improper and done with malice against the defendant. Her behavior also constitutes an abuse of her power with the intent to exercise undue influence over these proceedings."

Since Escalera's role is responsible for assembly of jurors issuing voir dire questionnaires, compiling court schedules among others, the defense team stated that she has a direct role in the judicial process and, as such, her continued involvement "not only provides the appearance of impropriety, but poses a threat to the defendant's ability to have a fair and impartial jury pool assembled and subsequent jury trial."

Notice of other crimes

The prosecution requested that the court allow evidence of Thomas' alleged actions with another woman, named as a former paramour, as well as a visit to the victim's house prior to the charged incident and other evidence "for a purpose other than to prove the defendant's character."

Motion to remove

The defense is requesting that the judge remove Escalera from any involvement in the case. The defense claimed that a review of some discovery information that Escalera, a prosecution witness, "engaged in an ex-parte conversation with a Somerset County Court of Common Pleas judge regarding the defendant."

Motion on revocation violation

A judge ruled on April 29 to revoke the bail of Thomas, but allow him to remain in his parents' home on an electronic ankle monitor and later ruled that Thomas could have work release to help in his father's auto garage.

The bond revocation hearing was held because of a motion from the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, after Thomas was charged with harassment and two other summaries related to a March 31 incident where he is charged with ramming his truck into a vehicle driven by a witness in the sex assault case. Thomas is fighting the charges in a summary trial on June 22.

Motion on criminal contempt

The Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General filed a motion to hold Thomas in criminal contempt of court. The prosecutors based their request on reported comments by Thomas in an article in the Daily American dealing with asset forfeitures. On April 1, Creany ordered that "all persons assisting or associated with Counsel for the defendant, including the defendant himself, are precluded from making extrajudicial statements (involving the sexual assault case)."

Thomas' defense team responded in a motion stating that the government's contention that the defendant be held in criminal contempt is "not only outrageous, but it serves no other purpose but to further place the defendant in a bad light..."

Motion to modify condition of bond

The defense team is requesting that the judge change the bond conditions because it requires that Thomas and his wife live separate from each other with the no contact order in place. Both Thomas and his wife "wish to have the no contact provision removed with respect to the bond conditions," according to the motion.

The couple have three children under the age of 6 and there "is a need for both parents to have contact with each other to share parenting responsibilities ..." according to the motion.

Follow Judy D.J. Ellich on Twitter @dajudye.

This article originally appeared on The Daily American: Senior judge to hear pretrial motions in DA Jeffrey Thomas case