Skip to content
Link copied to clipboard

Delco DA appeals order for new trials in ‘Chester Trio’ saga, complicating push for freedom.

Jack Stollsteimer’s office said new DNA evidence does not exonerate the men in a 1997 murder

(From left) Samuel Grasty, Derrick Chappell and Morton Johnson. Attorneys for the men are seeking to vacate their convictions for the murder of Henrietta Nickens, 70, of Chester, in 1997, arguing new DNA tests point to another suspect.
(From left) Samuel Grasty, Derrick Chappell and Morton Johnson. Attorneys for the men are seeking to vacate their convictions for the murder of Henrietta Nickens, 70, of Chester, in 1997, arguing new DNA tests point to another suspect.Read moreFamily photos/Handout

The Delaware County District Attorney’s Office has appealed a judge’s order suggesting that the incarcerated “Chester Trio” should receive new trials, the latest complication in the decades-long saga of three men who say they were wrongfully convicted for a 1997 murder.

In late March, lawyers for Samuel Grasty, Derrick Chappell, and Morton Johnson were celebrating what they described as a major breakthrough in their clients’ joint appeal for post-conviction relief.

Common Pleas Judge Mary Alice Brennan had ruled that, based on newly presented DNA evidence pointing to an unknown male perpetrator present during the brutal assault and murder of 70-year-old Henrietta Nickens, the outcome of the trio’s jury trials could have been different if tried today.

Grasty, 47, Chappell, 41, and Johnson, 44, were barely out of high school when sentenced to life in prison; through a handful of criminal justice nonprofits, the trio has maintained that unscrupulous police work and unreliable witnesses helped put them wrongfully behind bars.

But the appeal, filed by District Attorney Jack Stollsteimer’s office on Friday, shows that prosecutors have cast doubt on whether the unknown DNA profile — which modern testing recently linked to a jacket and other items found at the scene bearing no genetic connection to the trio — constitutes exculpatory evidence.

“While I have great respect for Judge Brennan, I do not believe the DNA evidence recently submitted to the court, which matches the DNA already entered into evidence at each of the three defendants’ individual trials, constitutes new evidence under Pennsylvania law, and certainly does not exonerate these defendants,” Stollsteimer said in a statement Wednesday.

The filing came several days after Stollsteimer, a Democrat who won reelection in 2023, lost a bid to be his party’s nominee for attorney general amid a crowded field of primary challengers.

The Chester Trio’s defense teams said the appeal was beyond disappointing; further, they suggest it will complicate a scheduled bail hearing in late May that, before Stollsteimer’s filing, would have all but guaranteed the men would be reunited with their families while they awaited the status of their trials.

“Obviously it’s disappointing, which is probably not a strong enough word for this development,” said Nilam Sanghvi, a lawyer with the Pennsylvania Innocence Project nonprofit that represents Chappell. “These guys have had such a long journey to wrongful incarceration already.”

Paul Casteleiro, who represents Grasty on behalf of the Princeton-based Centurion Ministries, called the appeal a “delay tactic,” and said the prosecution’s continued argument that Nickens had engaged in consensual sex or was assaulted by another individual without ties to her murder was “made up of nonsense and preposterous theories.”

“It’s a waste of everybody’s money,” Casteleiro said of the appeal.

The filing means that Brennan’s order will be scheduled to go before a Pennsylvania Superior Court, according to Sanghvi, a process that “could take quite some time.” The court can then request oral arguments from both parties.

Should the court uphold Brennan’s order, Sanghvi said Stollsteimer’s office would be in a position to decide whether it wants to retry the trio’s cases. Prosecutors could also continue the appeal process, sending their filing up to the state Supreme Court, she said.

“I can’t speculate to their motivations,” Sanghvi said. “They have obviously, after agreeing to the DNA testing, fought the results every step of the way since then. So I think we have to assume that they would try to move forward.”

Casteleiro said that the Friday filing does not include any reasoning for prosecutors’ objections; Brennan on Tuesday requested a separate filing from Stollsteimer’s office outlining their reasoning.

Both attorneys said they remain focused on securing their clients’ release at their May 23 bail hearing.

“We’re going to fight them every step of the way,” Casteleiro said. “These guys are innocent, and we’re not going to give up until they’re free.”