On Tuesday October 10th, Philip Vonville’s legal ordeal continues as he faces his second retrial for the 2009 fatal stabbing of Christopher Hernandez of Yonkers. This marks Vonville’s third legal battle in a saga that began with the fatal attack in Tunkhannock Township, PA.
In 2010, Vonville was acquitted of first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter after he lunged at his romantic rival, Christopher Hernandez, with a knife leading to his death. However, a Monroe County jury convicted him of third-degree murder of the 19-year-old Hernandez. He received a sentence of 20 to 40 years in prison. Vonville’s conviction soon raised questions about the integrity of the process, leading to a series of appeals and retrials.
Retrial granted
The turning point came in March 2019 when U.S. District Judge A. Richard Caputo granted Vonville a retrial following his petition for habeas corpus relief. The petition alleged violations of his Fifth Amendment rights centered around a controversial jury instruction given during the initial trial. Former Monroe County President Judge Ronald E. Vican had instructed the jury, “You may infer any inference of guilt from the fact that he did not testify in his own defense.” U.S. Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson concurred that the petition for a retrial be granted as this directive violated Vonville’s constitutional rights.
The proceedings took an unexpected turn in February 2020 when Vonville’s retrial ended in a mistrial. In this retrial, a juror had conducted unauthorized research into Vonville’s initial case, raising concerns about impartiality. The juror later explained, “other jurors wanted to know why we were coming back in here after 11 years to retry the case, so I told them why.”
As the third trial commences, the District Attorney and Vonville’s lawyer, Robert Saurman, have yet to comment on the case. The latest trial unfolds under the supervision of Judge Jonathan Mark.
The retrial of Philip Vonville highlights the complexities that can surround long-standing criminal cases. As the legal system grapples with issues of constitutional rights, ineffective counsel, and juror misconduct, the outcome of this trial may provide clarity and resolution to a case that has spanned more than a decade.
Despite Vonville’s claim the incident was a regrettable accident, the victim’s family have offered no forgiveness. Hernandez’s sister told Vonville at sentencing, “You can keep your remorse. You’re a monster. You’re not a man; you’re an ‘it’.” So, while the reality of a second retrial raises concerns over the legal processes involved to-date, those involved and affected by these outcomes are sure to be watching and hoping for closure, finally.
