Judge to rule on evidence of ‘swinger’ lifestyle during murder trial

A judge within the next day or two will rule on whether certain pieces of evidence, including details about Tonch Weldon's “swinger” lifestyle with his wife and the woman he's accused of killing two years ago, will be admitted when he's tried on a charge of first-degree murder next week.

Judge Douglas Russell also will rule shortly on whether statements that Weldon's children told a passerby immediately after the alleged shooting, a picture on MySpace.com of the suspect pointing a gun, and text messages between Weldon and the alleged victim, Amy Gephart, can be presented as evidence during the trial, which is scheduled to start Tuesday in Iowa County District Court and last up to two weeks.

Weldon is accused of fatally shooting Gephart, 35, with a 20-gauge shotgun before turning the weapon on himself in his home, three miles north of Marengo on June 7, 2009. Gephart was living with Weldon and his wife and two children at the time.

During a hearing in Marengo this afternoon, Edward Leff, one of Weldon's public defense attorneys, argued that they should be allowed to present evidence about his client's sexual history to jurors.

“What the court has to understand is that Amanda and Tonch Weldon consider themselves swingers, for lack of a better word,” Leff said. “They engaged in consensual sexual relations with others as a couple or as individuals.”

He said the couple did so without any jealousy or animosity toward each other.

“Clearly that is relevant in terms of motive or lack of motive,” Leff said. “It could go to lack of jealousy. It was a consensual three-way sexual relationship between Tonch, Amy and Amanda.”

Denise Timmins, assistant attorney general out of the Iowa Attorney General's Office and lead prosecutor on the case, argued that evidence about the sexual histories of the people involved have “no relevance.”

Any testimony about Gephart's relations with the Weldons would be presented only to “dirty up her reputation and would be prejudicial.”