« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Allegedly Political Prosecution Ends in Hung Jury
The House Judiciary Committee has concentrated on three cases as instances of political prosecutions pursued by President Bush's Justice Department.
Yesterday, one of those three, the trial of Dr. Cyril Wecht, a celebrity forensic pathologist, prominent Pennsylvania Democrat, and former coroner of Allegheny County, ended in a hung jury. After fifty hours of deliberations, the jury was hung and obviously going to stay hung. Prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney's Office in Pittsburgh leaped at the chance for a re-trial, which has been scheduled for May.
If the views of a juror is any indication, conviction will be difficult. Rev. Stanley Albright, a juror who was excused last week when he became ill, told the AP, "I couldn't find the crime."
Albright was the only Wecht juror to be interviewed on the record by the media, because Judge Arthur Schwab asked all jurors not to talk to the media or attorneys from either side after he declared the mistrial. Schwab had the jury on the case seated anonymously and then ensured that the jury left the courtroom before the media or the attorneys could speak to them. It was a series of moves that Wecht's lawyers, who've repeatedly tried to get Schwab removed from the case, say is unprecedented: "Who's ever heard of anything like this?" A handful of jurors spoke anonymously to The Pittsburgh-Tribune Review, one saying that "a majority of the jury thought he was innocent."
Dick Thornburgh, who served as attorney general under Pres. George H. W. Bush, testified to the House Judiciary Committee in October that the case brought by U.S. Attorney Mary Buchanan was a raft of "nickel and dime transgressions" trumped up into an indictment.
The government's case relied on charges that Wecht had used resources from his coroner office for his private practice. Most of the counts of wire fraud against Wecht related to his use of county fax machines ($3.96 worth, his lawyers say) for his personal business. He was also charged with improperly billing the county for gasoline and mileage costs -- for a total of $1,778.55, his lawyers say.
Rather than leading to a sprawling two-year federal prosecution, Thornburgh said, Wecht's transgressions should have been referred to the state ethics commission. So why was the case brought? Wecht is a high-profile Democrat, "an ideal target for a Republican U .S. Attorney trying to curry favor with a Department which demonstrated that if you play by its rules, you will advance," Thornburgh said, also noting that Buchanan had prosecuted "not one" Republican, while prosecuting Democrats in a "highly visible manner."
Yesterday, Thornburgh said that he'd appeal personally to Attorney General Michael Mukasey to bring an end to the case: "He knows what our grievances are. I think we can make a persuasive case that this prosecution should be dismissed forthwith." Thornburgh earlier had worked with then-Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty to ensure that Wecht was allowed to turn himself in: Buchanan, he's said, wanted to subject Wecht to a "perp walk."
The House Judiciary Committee has been consistently rebuffed by the Justice Department in its requests for documents from the case -- along with documents from the Georgia Thompson case in Wisconsin, which was dramatically overturned on appeal, and former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman's case, which awaits appeal, Siegelman just having been released from prison.
Update/Correction: This post originally stated that the judge on the case had ordered jurors not to speak to the media or Wecht's attorneys. In fact, the judge asked, but did not order, the jurors not to speak to all attorneys on the case.
Josh
Zachary
Wait a minute. A jury trial, most likely costing several thousands of dollars if not several tens of thousands of dollars, for fees of 1,782.51 which someone is considering are fees of a personal nature?
That make no sense to my little pea brain.
April 9, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You forgot the $3.96 - oh Hell, call it the $4 bill for Fax transmissions. That is Grand Larceny, right?
April 9, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
The trail alone cost $204,000. This figure excludes the prosecution's salary costs. Remember this is just for the trial, not the four year investigation. This case probably cost tax payers millions not to mention the cost of tying up investigative resources on a case such as this opposed to investigating terrorism, mortgage fraud, etc.
Link to cost estimate:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_560928.html
April 10, 2008 5:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
US Attorney Mary Beth Bucanan and Monica Goodling were real close - back when Monica was working at Main Justice.
This behavior should not be a surprise.
April 9, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
US Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan was Goodlings mentor in the Department of Justice. Mary Beth Buchanan was also the Executive Director for the US Attorneys Office during the start of the US Attorney firings. To date, Mary Beth is the only DOJ employee that testified to congress and still has her job. Her testimony was never releases and since her congressional testimony, she has taken a very low key role refusing to talk to media in any of her cases. Word on the street in Pittsburgh, my home town, is that Buchanan's career is over and she is on the chopping block as we speak. Many speculate the DOJ could not fire her with the Wecht case going on due to the blowback. In light of these rumors, it is not surprising to see the prosecution went for a retrial so quickly.
April 10, 2008 5:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Its Georgia Thompson, not George, here in Wisconsin.
April 9, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
[That George Thompson should be Georgia]
Good for Thornburgh. He can add this case to his helpwith the Americans with Disabilities Act and prosecutions of hate crimes to the pros and prose on his life summary.
April 9, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good lord - think of the costs to try this the first time, much less a second time.
And while the taxpayers are paying for Mary Beth (not me, a very different Mary Beth) to curry political favor and help make herself a nice slot for when Bush leaves office, taxpayers are still reeling from a $500,000 award of fees (and there may be more to come) from Alice Martin's improperly prosecuted defendant in Alabama. That's not including Seigelman.
If the House Panel is investigating, what they need to take a look at is this case:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/02/hbc-90002484
since a lot of the work is already done for them - what with the court finding no basis for the case to go forward and no basis for the pre-judgement attachments, and Martin spinning like a top to try to keep from having to testify under oath.
April 9, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Justice for all. Another quaint concept discarded by this bunch.
How on earth does the country fix this mess?
April 9, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have local muck "perjury" trial going on out here in San Diego area. A local Democrat on the city council (for the City of Chula Vista, a suburb of San Diego.)Republicans control the local DA's office is being prosecuted on 13 counts of perjury, because he answered "No." 13 times when asked by a DA investigator is he had intended to purchase a condo--although it would have been legal for him to have bought it. The "lie" is based upon the Prosecutor's belief that the Concilman really intended to buy the condo, because he had asked somebody how much they were selling for. Here's the article in today's Union-Tribune. You can see that the Judge, typical of San Diego judges is biased in favor of the prosecution--95% of all SAn Diego County Superior Court judges are former prosecutors:
Chula Vista councilman
Judge dismisses request for probe
By Tanya Mannes
STAFF WRITER
April 9, 2008
Opening arguments will begin today in the perjury trial of Chula Vista City Councilman Steve Castaneda, who is charged with making false statements about his intentions when he rented an apartment for his wife in 2005.
Superior Court Judge Michael Wellington yesterday denied the defense attorney's request for time to investigate a potential conflict of interest involving prosecutor Patrick O'Toole's “social relationship” with a witness.
Wellington did not publicly explain his decision.
Castaneda is accused of lying during O'Toole's investigation into an allegation that Castaneda sought free rent, money or benefits from a developer, Ash Israni of Pacifica Cos., who converted his wife's apartment complex to condominiums.
Castaneda has described the yearlong grand jury investigation as a “political witch hunt.”
O'Toole looked into issues including a $1,000 relocation allowance that was available to tenants. He found that the councilman did not ask for that money or other benefits.
Despite finding no evidence of misconduct, O'Toole said he decided to charge Castaneda with 13 counts of felony perjury for “lying about the facts” during his sworn testimony.
The perjury charges stem from when Castaneda answered “no” when O'Toole asked him numerous times if he had thought about buying one of the converted condominiums.
At least one witness testified that Castaneda asked about the price of a condominium, grand jury records show. O'Toole said he believes that inquiry indicates Castaneda once wanted to buy one, even though he didn't ultimately do so.
It would have been perfectly legal for Castaneda to purchase one of the condos or accept a relocation allowance, according to an opinion he sought from the state Attorney General's Office.
April 9, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Utter bullsh(t. When I read your article, I was enraged because such prosecution appears to be selective. In Pittsburgh, Mary Beth Buchanan used bought testimony that turned out to be perjury to wrongfully convict (and frame) a physician, Dr. Bernard L. Rottschaefer for allegedly prescribing medications that were medically unnecessary for sex. Since Dr. Rottschaefer's trial, evidence in the form of pre-trial correspondences written by one of the criminals Mary Beth Buchanan let out of jail for testimony favorable in to her case proved without a shadow of a doubt that the sex allegations were not only false but also planted by the prosecutor and the DEA investigator. In response, Mary Beth argued that she only needed to prove the medications were not necesssary and that she never had to prove sex which she claimed she did not. Then evidence surfaced that all the patient witnesses were still being treated with the same medications that were accused as being medically unnecessary and being diagnosed with the same ailments at the time of Dr. Rottschaefer's trial by other physicians. The court has refused to take the necessary action and Mary Beth has both refused to investigate the perjury that she paid her witnesses for.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294796,00.html
April 10, 2008 5:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
You might want to include the Mississippi Supreme Court Judge also. His conviction parallels that of Gov. Siegelman. This politicized DOJ is absolutely pitiful nand we can thank nSen. Schumer buying his bullshit at his confirmation hearing. Except in the hinterlands, there is no distinguishing line between Democrats and Republicans.
April 9, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't there used to be something about "prior restraint" in the Bill of Rights?
The judge ordered the jury not to speak with the defense? On what authority?
When did the transition to fascism become official?
April 9, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I pray that all these DOJ scumbags end up on trial and in jail next year, but I doubt it.
April 9, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another reason to fight like hell against McBush getting elected: St. John has already declared that he will investigate NOTHING the previous fed. admin. has done, that it will be "time to move on," to "put the past behind us & heal this country," or some such bullcrap.
Of course that would include cleaning out the corruption cesspool the Dept. of "We Used To Count On Them For" Justice has become.
April 9, 2008 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Regarding this profoundly corrupt woman--in looking at her biographical information online, isn't her claim that she married her childhood sweetheart at 17 and bore her daughter Jennifer right before college, then raising the girl all on her own, somewhat unbelievable? I would think the claim of a marriage is false and a lie. Can anyone prove who the guy was, where and when the marriage took place? Sounds to me like a right-wing Republican coming up with one more face-saving lie.
Also, I couldn't find enough info. on this online to add it to her Wikipedia page, but what about the claim that she's been protecting her husband's law firm (or another company of his?) from prosecution for Enron-style corruption? Any truth to that? Or is it just some blogger hyperventilating?
April 9, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
This woman, Mary Beth Buchanan, was an unwed mother from Clairton Pennsylvania. She did marry the guy but after she had the kid. Later she went on to marry MONEY in the Buchanan family.
I doubt she has been little miss angel all her life..
IMHO she's a monster in human flesh...
September 13, 2008 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is just ONE of how many politically-motivated prosecutions by these dishonest republicans?
I think the reps u.s. attorney scandal will become the biggest in the country (after stolen Federal elections.)
April 10, 2008 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Originally from Pittsburgh until very recently, I've been following this closely. I know some who have been involved in the trial and it's literally a display of Republican corruption and politicizing of the justice system. It's a disgrace.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_560928.html
They've estimated the trial has already cost over 200 grand and those costs will of course rack up if it's to be tried again.
The prosecution's argument is so full of holes and utter bullshit that the defense didn't call even a single witness.
Funniest side story: At at least one point during the trial, the judge brought in a cake for the jury.
April 10, 2008 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
You forgot to mention that the judge was extremely bias. The judge was a GW appointee who had connections with Mary Beth Buchanan's husband's law firm. Twice prior to trial, the defense attempted to have him removed. The first decision by the appeals court was 2 to 1. The second decision reaffirmed the first decision. Now that a trial has gone through, the defense is going to try a third time after having the judge attack the defense lawyers personally during cross examinations.
April 10, 2008 5:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
TPM Muckraker, I recently sent a comment through that provided a lot of background coverage of Buchanan's other controversial cases and practices. I hope that you will publish it and I hope you also go the distance and complete a blog on Mrs. Mary Beth Buchanan. I think it would benefit your leadership to read about Mary Beth's career since she is an up and coming loyal Bush supporter in the DOJ.
Other cases that have controversy are:
US vs. Tommy Chong (Multi-million dollar prosecution/investigation to convict 1 individual of selling water pipes (bongs)
US vs. Karen Fletcher (first prosecution of fictional stories)
US vs. Extreme Associates (first pornography prosecution in 25 years)
US vs. Sheriff Pete DeFazio
US vs. Mayor Tom Murphy
US vs. Dr. Bernard L. Rottschaefer (prosecution that centers around testimony by government witnesses that was proven to be knowingly false after the trial)
April 10, 2008 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
jury selection in all cases persecuting, er, prosecuting prominent Des may have to begin regularly including the question- do you listen to the local state right wing talk megastation blowhards who put this guy on trial on air as soon as they got the fax from Rove's office?
April 10, 2008 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
jury selection in all cases persecuting, er, prosecuting prominent Des may have to begin regularly including the question- do you listen to the local state right wing talk megastation blowhards who put this guy on trial on air as soon as they got the fax from Rove's office?
April 10, 2008 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
The odd behavior of the FBI appears not to have stopped with just the witnesses. The Pittsburgh Tribune Review ran an article this morning about how the FBI are harassing the former jury in the first Wecht trial. The article notes how many lawyers disagree with US Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan's assertion that the FBI contacts of the jury are routine.
Additionally, please note that the prosecution has already decided to retry the case without polling the jury. There really is limited reason they should be contacting the jury now since the retrial decision was already made.
Here is the link to the article. It also notes that the majority of the jury felt the case was political.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_561792.html
TPM should do a story on this one.
April 11, 2008 6:23 AM | Reply | Permalink