The Daily Pennsylvanian is a student-run nonprofit.

Please support us by disabling your ad blocker on our site.

The lawyer of accused murderer and Penn Economics professor Rafael Robb is hoping to keep the three-month-old case out of court.

Earlier this week, Robb's defense lawyer Frank DeSimone, who did not represent the professor at his February hearing, filed two motions in the Montgomery County Court challenging District Judge William Maruszczak's February ruling that the case had sufficient evidence to go to trial.

Robb was arrested in January for the murder of his wife, Ellen, who was found bludgeoned to death in the couple's Upper Merion home on Dec. 22.

Robb, who has consistently proclaimed his innocence since the murder, is currently being held without bail in jail, where he is awaiting an arraignment scheduled for next week.

He is charged with first- and third-degree murder, possession of a crime instrument and other related charges.

One of DeSimone's motions calls into question evidence of bloody footprints at the scene of the crime, according to the Norristown Times Herald.

DeSimone, who would not comment for this article, told the Times Herald that the footprints, believed to be those of the perpetrator, were too small to be Robb's size-12 feet.

This was discovered by DeSimone after Robb's February hearing.

The motion called for another hearing to consider the new information and to possibly throw out the charges against Robb.

Another motion, also filed by DeSimone, is more general, requesting that the court dismiss the case due to evidence that DeSimone called insufficient and largely circumstantial.

At the initial hearing in Montgomery County, District Attorney Bruce Castor, who is leading the prosecution against Robb, argued that Robb murdered his wife and then staged the crime scene to resemble a burglary.

Castor and his team believe that Robb's motive rested on knowledge that his wife was about to divorce him, a move that would potentially force him to pay some sort of spousal and child support for the couple's adolescent daughter.

However, DeSimone argued in his motions that none of Castor's evidence - including witnesses who discussed the couple's strained relationship and autopsy evidence alledgedly pointing to Robb - could actually place Robb at the scene of the crime.

Still, Castor said both motions were "completely without merit."

Lawyers "do that in every case - so what?" he said of DeSimone's decision to attempt to overturn the case.

Penn Law professor Paul Robinson, who specializes in criminal law and is unaffiliated with this particular case, likewise said that filing motions to dismiss a case is standard practice.

"That's what [lawyers] get paid for," he said.

Castor said he expects the judge to rule in the prosecution's favor.

Comments powered by Disqus

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.