BY DEBRA PALMIERI

dpalmieri@tnonline.com

Troy Crichton Esq., the attorney for Patricia Rorrer, convicted of killing Catasauqua resident Joanne Katrinak and her infant son, Alex, has responded to Lehigh Court of Common Pleas Judge Anna-Kristie Marks’ June 17 denial of his request for post-conviction relief.

The mother and son were reported missing by husband and father, Andrew Katrinak, on Dec. 15, 1994.

Their remains were found by a farmer on Palm Sunday 1995 in a wooded area of Heidelberg Township.

Marks gave Crichton 20 days to respond before she would issue her final order.

In his objection, Crichton states he reiterates arguments presented in the June 7, 2023, amended post conviction relief petition, transcripts from the Nov. 6, 2023, evidentiary hearing, which showed Dr. DiZinno’s handwritten notes, concerning testing of a hair, were not disclosed until Feb. 28, 2022, and the brief filed on May l, 2024.

Crichton states Rorrer’s original trial counsel James Burke Esq. testified at the hearing he had filed a Motion to Compel and Omnibus Motion during pretrial litigation, as well as requests for all expert reports and notes.

“At the hearing, not only did Mr. Burke testify that he had never seen Dr. DiZinno’s handwritten notes, he also stated he had not seen any of the other versions of various expert reports with handwritten notations,” Crichton states.

“This discrepancy gives credence to the fact that not only was Dr. DiZinno’s handwritten notes never disclosed to the defense, but neither were several versions of the other reports.”

Crichton, in his objection, also states: “It is not the duty of the PCRA Court to weigh the merits of the underlying case and come to its own conclusion. But rather to determine whether the newly discovered evidence would compel a different verdict if it were presented at trial ...”

Crichton asks whether there is a reasonable probability that had the evidence been disclosed, would the outcome of the trial been different.

“ ... In other words, did Petitioner (Rorrer) receive a fair trial when this evidence was clearly undisclosed and omitted?

“Petitioner asserts that had Dr. DiZinno’s handwritten notes been introduced at trial, the Commonwealth’s entire forensic analysis would have been undermined and discredited by one of their own witnesses. A more compelling cross examination is unimaginable.”

In light of Burke’s statement that he had not seen Dr. DiZinno’s handwritten notes and that this newly discovered evidence may have resulted in a different verdict at the original trial, Crichton, in the closing of his objection to Marks, asks the court to vacate Rorrer’s conviction and order a new trial.