By: Lydia Crawley
The Parsons Advocate
Judge Steven Shaffer held Court March 19th in Preston County to hear five motions in the 11 count indictment of Trenton DiBartolomeo that includes multiple charges of strangulation, as well as kidnapping, conspiracy, burglary and driving under the influence. DiBartolomeo was brought to Court from the Tygart Valley Regional Jail where he has been held without bond pending trial since his arrest in April of 2025 following an alleged assault in Parsons.
DeBartolomeo was represented in Court by his co-counsel Attorney Jeremy Cooper. DeBartolomeo’s regular attorney Phil Isner was not able to attend Court due to a scheduling conflict. Tucker County Prosecuting Attorney Savannah Hull Wilkins represented the State at the hearing.
The first motion heard by the Court was a motion by the defense to dismiss one of the Conspiracy charges in the case. Wilkins said she did not have any objections to dismissing Count Five of the Indictment for Conspiracy. Judge Shaffer granted the motion, which removed one of the two counts of Conspiracy from the Indictment.
A second motion by the defense was made to suppress statements based on a perceived diminished capacity by the defendant based on intoxication. Wilkins stated that the arresting officer was unavailable to testify that day and her expert witness had not been able to complete a report for the Court based on an evaluation of the defendant that had just been completed days prior. Wilkins asked the Court to defer the matter to a later date. She also argued that the motion had been made while she was in Jury Trial which did not afford her the time to properly prepare. Judge Shaffer said that to make a determination he required a report and testimony and that the burden would be on the State. The matter was deferred to a later date.
Motion three of the day was a request by the defense for the prosecution to disclose any requests for leniency by the victim. Attorney Cooper stated that he had been informed that there may have been statements and indications made by the victim that he wished leniency on the defendant.
“The victim has not recanted, has not asked to revoke charges,” Wilkins said.
Wilkins said there had been a plea offer discussed. However, nothing has been put into writing as of the date of court. She said she could “everything into writing” if needed.
Judge Shaffer asked Attorney Cooper how any such statement, if they existed, would have any bearing on DiBartolomeo’s guilt or innocence. Cooper said the matter rested on impeachment of the witness and the ability for the defense to establish reasonable doubt in the witness testimony.
The Court also cautioned the defense on the matter of potential witness intimidation. Wilkins said there have been jail calls that may be brought into discovery. The Judge also questioned how the defense received its information on what the victim was potentially saying.
“This court will not tolerate any sort of witness intimidation,” Judge Shaffer said.
The Court would review potential discovery for impeachment purposes. He also ordered the prosecution to turn over anything that she felt relevant to the case as it came available.
Motion four was a motion by the defense to exclude the recordings from the house. These included audio and video from cameras placed in the victims home the night of the alleged assault. Cooper alleged that the defense had not been provided with all the relevant recordings and that his team had only been provided “snippets” of recordings with more available.
“I am not certain of what exists or does not exist,” Cooper said.
Wilkins said that she was awaiting the arrival of a “data dump” of information from the State Crime Lab from electronic devices seized. A State Trooper was being sent with an external drive to retrieve the information and it was anticipated to be in the hands of the prosecution early the week of the 23rd.
This lead into the final motion, a motion by the prosecution to continue the trial, pending review of the new digital evidence and receipt of the mental evaluation and possible second opinion. The video dump alone was expected to contain several hours of footage from multiple cameras and cell phone data that would be used to established where particular defendants were at what point during the incident.
“I don’t have it, I don’t know what all there is,” Wilkins said. “There is potentially several hours of video evidence.”
Attorney Cooper opposed the motion, claiming that there still remained adequate time to review all the new evidence and still go to trial the middle of April, as scheduled.
“I don’t think it takes that long to do a device dump,” Cooper said.
The Court acknowledged that the prosecution had not requested a continuance previously in the proceedings. Judge Shaffer then read into the record the motions and filings made to date in the case, which included a motion for a speedy trial made by the defense that was later withdrawn and motions for continuance and accommodation. Following a statement that if requesting a speedy trial the Court tries to accommodate and reminding those assembled that Mr. DiBartolomeo was facing life in prison if convicted, he knew it would not be a trial that could easily be rushed through.
“The Court always worries when someone asks for a speedy trial,” Judge Shaffer said.
Judge Shaffer said that this was a complex case containing multiple defendants, many of which, who’s cases have yet to proceed to where DiBartolomeo’s has. The Court granted the motion for continuance and set a new date for trial in May.
“I want Mr. DiBartolomeo to have his day in Court as soon as possible, bit I also want you guys to have time to get this evidence and review it. He’s entitled to that,” Judge Shaffer said.
The Court coordinated with Judge Bright to set a trial date of May 18 – 22 with an alternative date of May 26 – June 1. A date for a final pretrial motions hearing was also set for April 28th with an alternate date of May 4th.
Following the proceedings of the Court, DeBartolomeo saw one Count of Conspiracy, a felony, dropped from his indictment. He currently faces the following ten charges going to trial: Count One: Burglary, a felony; Count Two: Conspiracy, a felony; Count Three: Interfering with Emergency Communications, a misdemeanor; Count Four: Kidnapping, a felony; Count Five: Strangulation, a felony; Count Six: Strangulation, a felony; Count Seven, Strangulation, a felony; Count Eight: Strangulation, a felony; Count Nine: Strangulation, a felony and Count Ten: Driving Under the Influence, a misdemeanor.
DiBartolomeo is a co-defendant along with his brother, Cory DiBartolomeo, Levi McCauley and Crystal Hensley, who all face a litany of felony and misdemeanor charges in the April 5, 2025 incident on Overlook Drive in Parsons. All four defendants remain held without bond.
CORRECTION: In last week’s Parsons Advocate, the wrong picture was ran for Trenton DiBartolomeo. The photo that ran was that of his brother and co-defendant Cory DiBartolomeo.
