« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Pennsylvania Dems, GOPers Send Open Letter to Mukasey about Wecht Case
In an open letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey and U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan today, more than two dozen Pennsylvania public figures urged that the Justice Department "reconsider the publicly announced decision to re-try De. Cryil Wecht." You can see the letter here.
Among the signers are Melissa Hart, a former Republican congresswoman who lost reelection in 2006, Jerry Johnson, the U.S. Attorney for Pittsburgh during the Reagan administration, and both the former and current chair of the Republican Party in Allegheny County. The signers also include a number of members of the Allegheny county council and the Democratic former mayor of Pittsburgh, Tom Murphy. The Wecht case is based on allegations that Wecht misused county resources while serving as coroner there.
Given that the jury hung in the first trial and jurors have told the media that most of them had agreed on acquittal, the signers agree that a second trial "would certainly not be in the interest of justice."
It's just the latest bit of pressure put on prosecutors. Reps. John Conyers (D-MI) and Mike Doyle (D-PA) have already expressed their concern that prosecutors used FBI agents to contact jurors who served on the case. Former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias, a Republican, also criticized that decision. And that's on top of the scrutiny the case has had for months.
Today, The Pittsburgh Post Gazette reports that prosecutors are pondering shopping for an out-of-town jury for the retrial because of negative media coverage of the case.
Josh
Zachary
I saw no mention of FBI interviewing Jurors after the hung jury. That is a major problem in my book
April 16, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
An open letter to Mukasey?
Wow. I wonder if Little Georgie and The Big Dick will let him read it.
April 16, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is time to do away with this government. It is a sham, it is criminal, it is tyranny. If our Congress cannot play its constitutional role and impeach the president, remove his lackeys and bring these people to the bar of justice; I would suggest that the very basic social contract between the people and the government has been broken. It is time to bring the government down and replace these criminals by any necessary means.
April 16, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
To have former US Attorneys and legislatures on both sides of the political divide comment on an ongoing investigation is shocking. This truly demonstrates a lack of support and belief in the prosecution's case. Of course, such was demonstrated when Dr. Wecht chose not to enter any witnesses or evidence in the first trial and the result was a hung jury.
Paul Kiel and TPM another great job in reporting.
If you get a chance, you should do a report on Mary Beth Buchanan's short career as the US Attorney for Western PA. She has been involved in very very controversial cases.
April 16, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
To have former US Attorneys and legislatures on both sides of the political divide comment on an ongoing investigation is shocking. This truly demonstrates a lack of support and belief in the prosecution's case. Of course, such was demonstrated when Dr. Wecht chose not to enter any witnesses or evidence in the first trial and the result was a hung jury.
Paul Kiel and TPM another great job in reporting.
April 16, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, did not think the comment went through previously. Please forgive.
April 16, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
An "open letter" is what the powerless send to the powerful. Other than the surprising inclusion of Allegheny County's GOP chair (who may well have been shamed by the blitz of blistering Pittsburgh press coverage), all of the other Republican signatories have little or no yank.
I hope they sprung the extra buck or two at the post office for Delivery Confirmation.
-AF
Andrew Sullivan Is A Fraud
April 16, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
AF, You got to remember that this is Pittsburgh. Besides US Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan, these are the Republican bigwigs excluding Arlen Specter. Also, don't forget former governor and former Attorney General under Bush I, Dick Thornburgh.
While I agree that these letters don't usually carry to much method weight, you have to remember that this letter comes out the same time that a new jury is being requested from the people of Pittsburgh, so I think this might have an impact indirectly on the process. It might be the intent of making the letter public.
April 16, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are correct. Apparently the personal chat with Ms. Buchanan did not convince her to drop this losing case - so they had to go public. Wow - Mary Beth is either very vindictive or too stubborn for her own good, or just plain stupid - not to realize that this just keeps damaging her already trashed reputation.
Melissa Hart jumped on this because you can imagine people asking her why Republicans insist on wasting more taxpayer dollars on this case - meanwhile she wants to be elected back to Congress as a Republican. Too funny.
Go spend more time with the family Mary Beth Buchanan - you're done in PA.
April 16, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Prior to the case starting, both sides met to discuss a potential settlement. Dr. Wecht's lawyers saw the case as small book keeping errors with no intent to defraud. They were hoping to settle with a fine and payback the $1,800 in costs associated with the errors. Wecht's lawyers thought the case would be a civil matter.
Instead Buchanan went off that the case was the biggest and most gross example of abuse of one's public office she ever witnessed. She informed Wecht and his lawyers she planned to indict him for criminal charges on intent to defraud the public and that she intended to have Dr. Wecht complete a purp walk once an indictment went through.
Thornburgh attempted to talk her out of both seeking criminal charges and going through with the purp walk. Thornburgh told Buchanan that the case was nickel and dime and barely a civil matter in his expert opinion. He said he felt that she was really reaching with the claim of criminal intent and that such a reach would surely backfire on her. He ended with a personal warning to her that if she went through with a criminal indictment she would be sorry. Stalling, the other federal prosecutor, went off on Thornburgh saying how dare he threaten Buchanan. Thornburgh later wrote in an affidavit that he was not threatening but instead providing a professional warning to someone that was clearly out of a ledge.
Here is a link to the affidavit that TPM provided earlier:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/thornburgh-affadavit/
April 16, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Guilty as charged. Today it seems my cynicism knows no bounds.
-AF
Andrew Sullivan Is A Fraud
April 16, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
AnacherForester your cynicism is always well placed.
April 16, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Further proof that the Republican Party's ongoing inbreeding program has produced a bunch of idiots incapable of critical thought.
April 16, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent! LOL
April 17, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/video/15913011/index.html
Here is a link to an interview about the case with former Mayor Tom Murphy of Pittsburgh. Mayor Murphy was another prominent Democrat that was targeted by US Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan. The interview is interesting in the similarities between Murphy's case and Wecht's case.
April 17, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/s_562958.html
Here is an article on the case that appears to address what the prosecutor received from the FBI interviews. Assistant US Attorney Stalling released a letter today to the media boasting that one juror stated that the vote was 6 to 5 in favor of convicting Wecht on 16 out of the 41 counts. While the DOJ is saying that such a vote shows their case has merit, I do not buy the math.
From the juror's statements (if they are in fact true), it would appear that the jurors were not in favor of convicting Wecht on 25 of the counts. As for the majority, a 5+1 to 5 split is not really a strong majority.
So with the information that only 16 out of their 41 counts they brought even made it over the 50% threshold in the vote, the DOJ decided to go forth with all the charges yet again.
April 17, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab declared a mistrial April 8 after jurors said they were deadlocked on all 41 counts of fraud and theft. The jury deliberated for three weeks following seven weeks of testimony."
Stallings' statement sounds like BS. Deadlocked on all 41 counts after 3 weeks - sounds like one juror holdout.
April 17, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ally, no one really knows. All the statements by the jurors since the trial have been one off discussions with reporters in which they don’t provide all the details and don’t release their names. To date, only a handful of the jurors have released statements, so you are not sure if the info on the deliberations is being fabricated.
With that said, the statements to the press by the jurors appear to be consistent with the prosecution’s letter; however I don’t think the letter is a beneficial argument to the prosecution’s case.
Initially, the jury foreman and a juror that was released from the deliberations due to illness, the 12th juror, stated that the majority were voting not guilty. This latest letter from a juror does not seem to contradict this information. If you take what he or she says as being true, it would mean that out of the 41 counts only 17 received majority votes for guilty. That means on only 41% of the total counts was the prosecution able to convince a majority of the jurors that Wecht was guilty. The juror wrote these majorities were 6 out of 5. Not really a ringing endorsement for the prosecution’s case.
Thank god a criminal conviction requires all jurors to vote the same way.
Here is a link to the article with the jury foreman’s statements.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/search/s_561365.html
April 17, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ally, no one really knows. All the statements by the jurors since the trial have been one off discussions with reporters in which they don’t provide all the details and don’t release their names. To date, only a handful of the jurors have released statements, so you are not sure if the info on the deliberations is being fabricated.
With that said, the statements to the press by the jurors appear to be consistent with the prosecution’s letter; however I don’t think the letter is a beneficial argument to the prosecution’s case.
Initially, the jury foreman and a juror that was released from the deliberations due to illness, the 12th juror, stated that the majority were voting not guilty. This latest letter from a juror does not seem to contradict this information. If you take what he or she says as being true, it would mean that out of the 41 counts only 17 received majority votes for guilty. That means on only 41% of the total counts was the prosecution able to convince a majority of the jurors that Wecht was guilty. The juror wrote these majorities were 6 out of 5. Not really a ringing endorsement for the prosecution’s case.
Thank god a criminal conviction requires all jurors to vote the same way.
Here is a link to the article with the jury foreman’s statements.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/search/s_561365.html
April 17, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, did not mean to post twice. :(
April 17, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Looks like I spoke to soon. Here is a quote from the one juror that was dismissed prior to the end of jury deliberations. He was dismissed during the middle of the second week.
This statement on the record seems to be in contrast to the juror's letter. Perhaps the split did change over the course of the next four or so days of deliberation. Still no report of a 10-1 split in favor of the prosecution's case or any vote for that matter greater than 6-5 for the prosecution on a count.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08109/874537-85.stm
April 18, 2008 6:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08108/874311-100.stm
And the story on the Wecht case keeps growing. Conyers committee in congress just released a preliminary report on the ongoing investigation into the selective prosecutions run by the DOJ. Buchanan was interviewed during the investigation and from what is reported, it appears the DOJ has stonewalled discovery in Congress’ review of the Wecht case in related to the overall inquiry. Now Congress is requesting more documents in the Wecht case for review. The Wecht case is getting more and more interesting.
Paul and TPM, if you have access to this report, would you please post it. The story broke in Pittsburgh, yet the report has not been posted for people ready the news story to review.
Also, Paul and TPM, would you please keep covering this case. Your posts are getting this case the national attention it deserves and it appears to be getting congress to take needed action.
April 17, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The US Attorney appears to have misrepresented the "majority" position. The majority, according to this juror, was voting to acquit, not convict as the US Attorney stated.
The issue isn't whether the reports about the jury are or are not fabrications; but whether others are misrepresenting what did or didn't happen inside the deliberations. It appears the US Attorney has misrepresented the majority view.
April 18, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Testing,
The prosecution is actually sparsing the letter in their favor from the reports. I agree outright that the letter demonstrates that the majority was for acquittal of the charges; however AUSA Stalling appears to only be focusing in on the 17 counts and excluding the remaining 24 counts. Within the juror's letter it states that on 17 counts out of the 41, the jury was in favor of convicting on a 6 to 5 split. Since the juror is obviously in favor of conviction, it would be odd for him/her not to include the other 24 counts if the vote was in favor of guilt.
I read your posting on the alleged Stalling violation. I agree with you that he has clearly violated the rules on this one. The prosecution should not have entered the letter because it serves no useful purpose to the issue at hand. The only intent of the letter is to impact the jury pool in my opinion.
A similar occurence happened at the time of the indictment of Dr. Wecht. US Attorney Buchanan, Stalling's direct superior, did a similar action when she held a press conference on the day of the indictment and started to throw out the accusations in the indictment on the evening news. The press conference is online. Because of her actions in the press conference, she is currently under review by the PA disciplinary board for her actions. Not sure if a resolution happened yet with the PA review.
April 22, 2008 7:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know this:
You say you know she is "currently under review". You work there?
May 11, 2008 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Testing,
The information noted by GSB27 is public knowledge in the Wecht case and was covered extensively by the local Pittsburgh newspapers last summer.
This past summer, the prosecution filed a motion requesting sanctions against Cyril Wecht’s attorneys for discussing aspects of the case to the press. In response, Cyril Wecht’s lawyers filed a similar motion requesting sanctions on U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan for discussing the same aspects of the case at her post indictment press conference she held in the summer of 2006. Judge Schwab, the presiding judge in the case of U.S. vs. Dr. Cyril Wecht, referred both complaints to the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania for review.
Since the referral, there has not been further information on the proceedings reported in the newspapers. Except for a prosecution motion to attempt to have the Disciplinary Board proceedings sealed (which was denied), there is still no new information on the happenings.
May 12, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is public knowledge. Look up the case online and review the news coverage.
May 13, 2008 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
This isn't answering the question. You haven't answered the question on what shows the US Attorney is "currently under review by the PA disciplinary board". Just a vague, sweeping assertion.
June 28, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
All,
Here are links to new occurrences in the Wecht case. The defense has filed multiple motions to dismiss the case.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_563631.html
http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/15950196/detail.html
One of the motions has to do with Judge Schwab bias towards the prosecution. Prior to filing the motion, the judge stated
Wecht's lawyers response was
Another issue is that it appears the judge did not accurately depict in his statements the concerns of the dismissed juror. It appears the juror did not wish to leave the proceedings as the judge stated.
Then there is issues with the search warrant and affidavits. From the filings, there appears to be issues with the process undertaken in the search warrant process associated with the lead FBI agent. This agent has a history of violations with the FBI that only came to light after the search warrant was exercised.
April 22, 2008 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/search/s_564723.html
Five jurors in Dr. Wecht's trial went on the radio this morning. From their collective statements (see attached link), it is clear they were not in favor of the government's case.
April 28, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is public knowledge. Look up the case online and read the news reports.
May 13, 2008 7:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
this good news for blog article is so popular & good idea by the blogger.
--------------
tribhuvan
------------
Drug Intervention Pennsylvania-Drug Intervention Pennsylvania
March 12, 2009 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink