A series of charges will bind over, or proceed to criminal trial, against two suspects in a Three Rivers home invasion case following the conclusion of a hearing Friday. Charges that bind over may proceed because attorneys have shown they meet requirements to show probable cause, which is a reasonable basis for believing a person is likely to have committed a crime. Once at trial, the charges must meet higher standards of proof wherein prosecutors must prove their charges to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

The two suspects in question, Amber Carpenter and Alexander Zuchnik, were arrested following a home invasion on South Constantine Street in Three Rivers. Testimony by the victims said Zuchnik, Carpenter, and a third suspect, Nicholas Mastos, approached two partygoers outside the house in the early hours of Sunday, July 19.

The suspects demanded entry and threatened the two with weapons before Carpenter went to the front door and began demanding to be let in, according to testimony. Zuchnik and Mastos went around the house and broke into garage in order to enter the kitchen. From there, they entered the basement, where they threatened the homeowner outside his bedroom. Throughout the incident, the suspects repeatedly asked victims, “who raped my homey,” pointing toward Mastos.

After the homeowner convinced the suspects he did not know what they were talking about, Zuchnik and Mastos left the house and returned to a residence a short distance away with Carpenter. The victims called the Three Rivers Police Department (TRPD), who used a K9 to track the suspects and arrest them.

At the conclusion of the preliminary examination hearing, which began Tuesday and ended on Friday, 3B District Judge Robert Pattison permitted a series of charges to proceed to trial after Deborah Davis, acting as prosecuting attorney for the state, argued in their favor.

Davis presented a list of charges that included home invasion, conspiracy to commit home invasion, aiding and abetting in the home invasion, obstruction of justice, conspiracy to commit homicide, and several firearms and assault charges during the hearing. Five victims to the home invasion presented witness testimony, including the homeowner, his sister, and three people who were at his house the night of the incident for a birthday party.

Testimony and arguments began Tuesday afternoon, but were paused that evening after they extended past the court’s available staff time for the day. At that time, Pattison questioned whether some of Davis’ charges met the standard of probable cause. He scheduled a continuation for Friday, and asked Davis to gather additional material to prove her probable cause arguments in the meantime.

At Friday’s continuation, Davis clarified her arguments and attorneys representing the suspects made their closing arguments. Laurie Hines, representing Carpenter, asked that all charges against her client be dropped on the grounds that Carpenter did not break into the house herself, and that the suspects were “just looking to find out what happened with their friend.” Don Smith, Zuchnik’s attorney, objected to some of Davis’ specific arguments on a few of the charges against his client, and asked for those charges to be dropped.

Pattison questioned whether assault with a deadly weapon and related charges could stand against Carpenter because he said witness testimony did not make clear whether she held a weapon at all, or whether she held it in a threatening manner. Due to that potential uncertainty, Pattison prevented those charges from binding over.

The judge further questioned whether an obstruction of justice charge could stand against Carpenter. Zuchnik and Mastos told the victims outside the house not to drive away or to call the police and threatened to shoot their vehicle’s windows out. In many circumstances, threatening witnesses can be sufficient to constitute obstruction of justice, and Davis argued that the threat to shoot out the windows met that standard, since it also placed the victims in danger.

However, according to testimony, after the two male suspects went around the house to break inside, Carpenter told the victims they could leave as long as they did not call the police. Because Carpenter did not make the shooting threat herself, and because the let the two outside victims leave, Pattison did not let the obstruction of justice charge against her bind over.

Davis argued in favor of an assault with a deadly weapon charge against Zuchnik that specifically alleges he carried a pneumatic gun and pointed it at the victims. Testimony by two victims said Zuchnik carried a revolver instead. Consequently, Pattison questioned the validity of the charge. Davis said she could confidently argue that it was a pneumatic weapon, but Pattison said no evidence had been presented to show that it was at the hearing.

Because Pattison suggested it might be better for Davis to modify her charge to represent the weapon the victims saw, Smith objected, saying it was inappropriate for a judge to suggest charges to the prosecution. A judge cannot add charges to a criminal case, but because he was instead advising Davis, Pattison overruled the objection. He told Smith that any errors that take place during the hearing could be addressed in the criminal trial. “Anything I do wrong, Judge Stutesman can clean up,” he said. “You can sort out any errors in my findings when you get upstairs.”

Some additional charges also did not bind over, but both Carpenter and Zuchnik will stand trial in circuit court on the home invasion charges. Each will also face several different conspiracy charges, and Zuchnik will face some related weapons and assault charges.

Of Hines’ argument that the suspects simply wanted to talk to the victims, Pattison said, “it’s pretty clear they came to give someone a beatdown, and they had weapons to take care of it. I strongly infer that’s why the weapons were there, and Ms. Carpenter even handed off the bat and Mr. Zuchnic carried it in the home with him to use.”

Speaking further on the potential seriousness of the charges, Pattison said it can be “enjoyable to go through the academic (details)” of how charges can and cannot stand based on testimony and other evidence, but that the event itself was “anything but academic for the people involved.”

Pattison said it was “very fortunate that the day that this happened, we weren’t dealing with a death” either committed by the suspects themselves or in self-defense by any of the victims. He said he found it “hard to believe it wouldn’t be an appropriate defense.”

“I’m happy to say today and I was happy to say it then, that didn’t happen,” Pattison said. “We could have been dealing with a much greater tragedy.”

Dave Vago is a writer and columnist for Watershed Voice. A Philadelphia native with roots in Three Rivers, Vago is a planning consultant to history and community development organizations and is the former Executive Director of the Three Rivers DDA/Main Street program.