Most of us are familiar with the proclamation that “a man’s home is his castle.” In our politically correct world, this also applies to women, of course, but the original saying goes back to when the Founding Fathers (no mothers were involved in the deliberations) were developing the U.S. Constitution in 1787.

The expression is illustrative of the principle of an individual’s right to privacy, a cornerstone to our system of government. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution is embedded in our Bill of Rights to protect us from “unreasonable searches and seizures.”

Actually, the inviolability of one’s home and property goes back to Roman times when the famous statesman Cicero said (translated from the Latin), “What more sacred, what more strongly guarded by every holy feeling, than a man’s own home?”

More recently, in 1644, English Judge Sir Edward Coke said, “… for a man’s house is his castle.” In contemporary England, this expression is almost always, “An Englishman’s home is his castle.”

Thousands of court cases have been heard with this principle as its basis. One of the most compelling ended just last month in our area when a Monroe County jury returned a “not guilty” verdict on all counts against Randy Halterman of Stroud Township.

Halterman was facing multiple charges of homicide and aggravated assault in the shooting of two invaders of his home. One of them died, the other was wounded.

The jury of seven men and five women returned its unanimous decision after just about three hours of deliberations following the six-day trial. Generally, such a short deliberation period means that there probably was near agreement among all of the jurors when they first entered the jury room.

Halterman’s defense team insisted that Halterman shot and killed Adam Schultz, 20, and his girlfriend, Chastity Frailey, in January 2021, because they had broken into his home with the intent of stealing guns and other valuable items and that he feared for his safety.

In his 911 call, Halterman told the dispatcher, “I just had some intruders, burglars, and I shot one of them.”

The defense presented damning evidence such as text messages that showed that Schultz asked a friend for burglary materials, including gloves and a crowbar. Defense attorneys said they believe the crowbar was used to break into Halterman’s home, although Frailey claimed the door was unlocked.

The prosecutor from the district attorney’s office told jurors that even homeowners cannot take the law into their own hands and pointed out that Halterman had threatened trespassers with a firearm seven years ago.

According to Frailey’s testimony, she and Schultz were walking toward the remains of the former Penn Hills Lodge resort south of Analomink when they happened upon the Halterman home.

She said they thought it was unoccupied because of the amount of garbage and debris on the property. Frailey claims that Schultz called out inquiring whether anyone was in the building. When they did not get any response, she said that they started exploring the interior of the structure.

When Frailey said she joined Schultz on a second-floor catwalk and shone a flashlight into a corner she caught sight of a weapon, and that was when Halterman opened fire.

While prosecutors typically give homeowners the benefit of the doubt in cases such as these, several statements Halterman made at the time of his arrest threw a different light on the case.

He said he was in fear for his life and unaware of whether the couple were armed, but when he was asked why he continued to shoot multiple times, Halterman said he “wanted closure,” did not trust the system and because he couldn’t “let them get away.”

A central principle in this case was the “Castle Doctrine,” which is in force in Pennsylvania and which was updated in 2011. It says, in effect, that if a person forcefully and illegally enters a home, the homeowner can use force, even deadly force, if he or she believes his or her life is in danger. As several prosecutors explained to me, there are many factors and variables, along with numerous judgment calls, that go into the application of the “Castle Doctrine.”

By Bruce Frassinelli | tneditor@tnonline.com