Trial to start in collapse of Salvation Army store

It towered over its neighbors, but in 123 years, nothing so distinguished the four-story brick building at 2136-38 Market St. as the way it came down.

It is 10:41 a.m. on June 5, 2013, and the sunny, late-spring morning is ruptured by the roar of falling masonry and an enveloping cloud of dust.

The adjacent single-story Salvation Army thrift store, which has anchored the corner at 22d Street since 1948, disappears under debris, killing six people and seriously injuring 13.

The collapse was one of the most significant events in the city's modern history, and on Tuesday, a judge and lawyers will begin selecting 12 Philadelphians who will decide whether Griffin Campbell, a 51-year-old Hunting Park demolition contractor, should be held criminally liable for what happened.

Common Pleas Court Judge Glenn B. Bronson has an ambitious schedule: Panels of at least 100 potential jurors questioned each day until a jury is selected for a four-week trial. The judge has said he hopes to have a jury and begin opening statements as soon as Thursday.

Twenty civil lawsuits have been filed by survivors and relatives of those killed against 18 individuals and entities. The suits contend that the unsupported wall fell on the Salvation Army store because the building was being demolished with the goal of preserving salvage value, not public safety.

But after a two-year investigation by a county grand jury, only two men were criminally charged: Campbell and Sean Benschop, 44, of North Philadelphia, the operator of the 36,000-pound Caterpillar excavator believed to have caused the collapse.

Benschop pleaded guilty July 21 to six counts of involuntary manslaughter - one for each person killed - 12 counts of reckless endangerment, and one count of aggravated assault for a woman buried for 13 hours who lost both legs.

Benschop also pleaded guilty to conspiracy and causing a catastrophe in a deal in which prosecutors agreed to seek a prison term of 10 to 20 years.

Campbell has maintained his innocence and as recently as last Monday rejected the same deal prosecutors offered Benschop - despite facing a life prison term without parole if a jury finds him guilty of more than one count of third-degree murder.

The path Campbell's trial will take is difficult to gauge, in part because of a judge's gag order that bars Assistant District Attorneys Jennifer Selber and Edward Cameron and defense lawyer William D. Hobson from public comments outside court.

Hobson has called Campbell a scapegoat.

First among those who Hobson said should have been charged is Richard Basciano, the octogenarian who owned most of the buildings on the 2100 block of Market Street, including 2136-38. Earlier this year, Basciano sold to several buyers all of his Center City real estate holdings for more than $22 million.

For years, Basciano's properties - aging buildings housing an adult theater and low-end retail - were considered a bar to revitalizing Market Street from City Hall to the Schuylkill.

But an improving real estate market led Basciano to announce in 2013 that he would raze his properties and build a residential-commercial complex.

By June 5, 2013, Campbell, Basciano's demolition contractor, was down to the largest building: 2136-38.

At a July pretrial hearing, prosecutors said Campbell alone bears primary responsibility for the disaster.

They allege that Campbell wanted to maximize the salvage value of the building's beams and joists, so he had workers remove them first. That destabilized the exterior walls, leaving them prone to toppling.

Prosecutors say their demolition expert will testify that 2136-38 could have been demolished without endangering the Salvation Army store only by taking it down brick by brick, roof to ground.

But that method, reads the grand jury's presentment, "could be a costly . . . and lengthy process."

That aside, Hobson has argued that others should share in the blame, especially Basciano, an experienced developer well aware of how the demolition was being done.

Moreover, Basciano and his wife, Lois, were on the site, talking to Campbell, as the building toppled in front of them.

Although the Bascianos have been sued, neither was criminally charged. Their lawyer could not be reached but has consistently declined comment on the collapse or its legal aftermath.

So far, Hobson has not persuaded Bronson to let him defend Campbell by sharing the blame for the collapse with Basciano and officials of the city's Department of Licenses and Inspections.

"The mayor's, the chief of staff's public statements - what effect do they have . . . that's relevant to the state of mind of your client?" Bronson asked during the July hearing.

Bronson said he would not permit any evidence of post-collapse lawsuits, reports, or government agency reforms because it was irrelevant.

Nor - unlike TV courtroom dramas - may Hobson argue his scapegoat theory before the jury, or invoke the names of the unindicted.

"The fact that persons did not get charged - the 'big boss' - seems to me inadmissible and should not be mentioned," said Jules Epstein, a veteran Philadelphia criminal defense lawyer who teaches trial advocacy and evidence at Temple University's law school.

But a defense lawyer may indirectly develop a scapegoat theory through careful questioning of prosecution witnesses, Epstein said.

Hobson, for example, has said he will subpoena Basciano as a witness, although it is likely that the elusive developer would invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and never appear before the jury.

Two other potential defense opportunities are prosecution witnesses Plato A. Marinakos Jr., the architect Basciano hired to oversee the demolition - who testified before the grand jury under a grant of immunity from prosecution - and Benschop, the excavator operator who pleaded guilty.

Epstein said Benschop would provide an opportunity for Campbell's defense because Hobson will ask for details about his guilty-plea agreement, and telegraph to the jurors that prosecutors found the lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter acceptable - and so could the jury.

Of course, that would also be a reason for prosecutors not to call Benschop as a witness, Epstein said.

It could be that Campbell's best hope will be that his lawyer can persuade a jury to find him guilty of manslaughter rather than six counts of third-degree murder and the potential life sentence.

The difference between the two, explained Epstein, is that third-degree murder requires the jury to infer malice from a reckless disregard for human life in Campbell's actions.

"The position of the defense could be that what he did was negligent or even reckless but not at the level of third-degree murder - and that means involuntary manslaughter," Epstein said.

Source: Philly.com