Jury begins deliberating in Philly Valentine's Day killings

A Philadelphia jury returns Wednesday for a second day of deliberations in the murder trial of Shaun Warrick, accused of killing his ex-girlfriend and her cousin on Valentine's Day 2011.

The Common Pleas Court jury of six women and six men spent about 31/2 hours reviewing evidence Tuesday after a morning of closing arguments by lawyers and instructions in the law from Judge Glenn B. Bronson.

The jury twice returned to court, once with a question about the operation of a semiautomatic pistol and once to request police photos of the victims, the Frankford house in which the cousins were killed, and a floor plan of the house's second floor.

Warrick, 32, of Logan, is charged with killing Tiffany Barnhill, 19, and her 22-year-old cousin Marcedes Ivery, whose bodies - each shot multiple times - were found in upstairs bedrooms at Ivery's house in the 5400 block of Rutland Street.

Warrick was allegedly angry because Barnhill had broken off their relationship and Ivery was interfering with his efforts to talk to her. Barnhill did not own a cellphone, and Ivery was refusing Warrick's calls to her cellphone and landline.

Trial witnesses testified that shortly after 3:30 p.m., Warrick, accompanied by two women, arrived at Ivery's house. While the women waited outside, witnesses said, Warrick kicked in the front door and entered. Gunfire was heard, and Warrick then ran out of the house, tucking something into his pants, and fled with the two women.

The jury must decide whether Warrick is guilty and, if so, the degree of murder: first-degree, a premeditated, malicious killing; second-degree, a killing carried out while committing another crime, in this case burglary; or third-degree, a malicious crime in which the death occurs through reckless or negligent conduct.

If the jurors find Warrick guilty of first-degree murder, Assistant District Attorney Thomas Lipscomb has said, he will ask them to sentence him to death.

That decision will come after a penalty hearing where Lipscomb will present evidence of "aggravating factors" - a double slaying, for example - that he will argue merits the death penalty.

Defense attorney Jack McMahon will present evidence of "mitigating factors - such as a deprived childhood, or mental or emotional problems - supporting a default sentence of life in prison without possibility of parole.

In his closing argument, McMahon told the jurors there were too many holes in the chain of circumstantial evidence for them to find Warrick guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

McMahon urged the jury to analyze the evidence and not be swayed by emotion: "This was a sad crime, a tragic crime, a horrible crime. It shouldn't have happened, but it did. But that's not the question here."

McMahon argued that there was no physical evidence linking Warrick to the killings: no gun recovered, no witnesses who saw Warrick with a gun or saw him shoot Barnhill and Ivery, and no fingerprints.

McMahon suggested that the real killer was an unidentified male whose voice was overheard on a cellphone call made by Warrick to Ivery while he and the two women drove to Rutland Street.

The defense lawyer also attacked the credibility of the women who accompanied Warrick to the house, accusing them of blaming him so they would not be charged as accomplices to the double slaying.

Lipscomb, however, argued that the circumstantial evidence, corroborated by Warrick's accomplices and testimony from a woman who said she watched Warrick break into Ivery's house, proved Warrick was the killer.

"Have you guys ever heard what's become my new favorite expression?" Lipscomb began his closing. "If you hear hoofbeats, it's a horse and not a zebra. Sometimes the simplest explanation is the most likely and it's borne out by the evidence."