Marchello D. Woodard, top, was shot and killed by Pennsylvania state parole agent Kevin J. Seelinger, bottom, on July 2, 2025. Erie County District Attorney Elizabeth Hirz is seeking a first-degree murder conviction against Seelinger at a trial that started in Erie County Common Pleas Court on Oct. 5.
GREG WOHLFORD/ERIE TIMES-NEWS
USA TODAY Network, Reuters
The family of Erie parolee Marchello D. Woodard has been vocal about demanding accountability since Pennsylvania state parole agent Kevin J. Seelinger fatally shot Woodard during a compliance check in July 2025.
One of the relatives also took an interest in a witness’ account of the shooting.
A niece of Marchello D. Woodard spoke with a key witness between the witness’ two police interviews, according to testimony at Seelinger’s murder trial in Erie County Common Pleas Court.
The testimony focused on what has become a critical element in the prosecution’s case against Seelinger – whether Woodard’s car was dragging him.
According to testimony, the niece spoke to the witness after the witness’ first police interview on July 7, 2025. That interview was two days after Seelinger shot Woodard as Woodard was in a car in the 400 block of East 27th Street, near the residence where the witness lived at the time.
The witness, Tiffany Smith, provided a revised account of how the shooting occurred in her second interview, according to testimony. That interview was with Pennsylvania State Police on Aug. 5, 2025.
Smith testified that in both accounts she was consistent on a major point – that she heard gunshots and then saw a person getting dragged by a car. The defense disputes that sequence of events and contends that Seelinger shot Woodard in self-defense as Woodard was driving the car and dragging him.
Witness says Woodard’s niece spoke with her
District Attorney Elizabeth Hirz called Smith to the stand on Oct. 8.
Smith testified about the shooting: “It looks like they were hanging on the vehicle,” and, as Woodard’s car was moving west, “I see the person no longer attached to the vehicle.”
Seelinger’s lead defense lawyer, Chad Vilushis, cross-examined Smith. Smith agreed that in her first interview with investigators, which she asked not to be recorded, she said a person – later identified as Seelinger – had his arm in the car “and was being dragged.”
Vilushis asked Smith about the second interview, which was recorded. Smith said that, between interviews, she had spoken to Woodard’s niece, who lived down the street from her.
Smith agreed with Vilushis about what she said in the second interview. Based on the conversation with the niece, whom Smith did not identify, Smith said she told police in the second interview that her understanding was that Seelinger had gone up to Woodard’s car and “shot off the gun for no reason, because he already has got him in the car.”
Hirz asked Smith to clarify her remarks on redirect examination. Smith said she always heard shots and then saw the person being dragged.
Case focuses on intent and self-defense
The prosecution was still presenting its case-in-chief in Woodard’s trial on Oct. 9, putting the trial on track to extend into next week. Judge John J. Trucilla is presiding.
The case lacks video evidence. State parole agents were not outfitted with body cameras at the time of the shooting. State police, which investigated the shooting, were unable to obtain neighbors’ surveillance video that captured the entire incident, according to testimony.
Woodard, 43, was shot three times about 9:45 p.m. on July 2, 2025. One shot entered his back, striking his lungs and aorta, according to the autopsy.
The defense is arguing that Seelinger shot Woodard because he feared death or serious bodily injury as Woodard’s car dragged him. The prosecution is arguing that Woodard attempted to drive away because Seelinger was already firing at him.
Pennsylvania law allows intent to be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon upon a vital part of the body. Hirz has cited that law and is seeking a first-degree murder conviction against Seelinger, 36, who she contends intended to kill Woodard.
Woodard’s family raised concerns at start of probe
Woodard’s family and supporters pushed for a charge of murder. The death of Woodard, who was Black, led to protests in Erie, with many demonstrators connecting the case to the Black Lives Matter movement. The Fraternal Order of Police has criticized Hirz’s decision to charge Seelinger.
Woodard’s family challenged the official account from the beginning of the investigation. The family disputed the summary of the shooting that state police released about 24 hours after Woodard’s death.
The summary stated that a parole officer shot Woodard as Woodard attempted to drive away in his car, dragging one of the agents, who then fired multiple rounds into the car before falling free.
Woodard’s family responded in a statement on July 8, 2025. The family demanded law enforcement officials retract “the erroneous details surrounding the death of Marchello Woodard, to include the lies released about his culpability in his own death.”
Contact Ed Palattella at epalattella@usatodayco.com or 814-870-1813.
This article originally appeared on Erie Times-News: Seelinger murder trial examines witness’ talks with Woodard’s niece
Reporting by Ed Palattella, Erie Times-News / Erie Times-News
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
Copyright Reuters or USA Today via Reuters Connect
This story was originally published October 9, 2026 at 11:16 AM.