Public still waiting for ex-county judges’ court date

Laurene Transue is looking forward to the day when former Luzerne County judges Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan appear in court to face charges related to the juvenile justice scandal that ensnared her daughter and thousands of other youths.

She had hoped the judicial system would act as swiftly as Ciavarella did when he deemed her daughter a juvenile delinquent for mocking a school official and sentenced her to a wilderness-style boot camp.

But with the first anniversary on Tuesday of the filing of charges against the former judges, it’s become clear the system that failed to protect the constitutional rights of her daughter and others is taking far greater care – and time – in prosecuting the men accused of violating those rights.

“I’m disappointed it’s taking so long,” said Transue, 47, of White Haven. “When are they going to stand up before a judge and be held accountable?”

Initially it seemed that the federal case against Ciavarella and Conahan would be resolved within a matter of months. The judges entered plea agreements on Jan. 26 that called for them to plead guilty and serve 87 months in prison on charges of honest services fraud and tax evasion.

The case took an unexpected turn on July 31, however, when U.S. District Judge Edwin Kosik refused to accept the terms of the deal. That led Conahan and Ciavarella to withdraw their guilty pleas on Aug. 24.

Sixteen days later, a federal grand jury issued a 48-count indictment against the men, charging them with racketeering, bribery, extortion, money laundering, honest services, wire and mail fraud and tax offenses.

The indictment completely altered the posture of the case, creating a host of legal issues that were not present before, said Al Flora, one of Ciavarella’s attorneys.

“If you look at where we were in August compared to now, that’s 4 � to five months. That’s a short time period in a case of this type,” Flora said. “There is a lot of work associated with this case. People have to understand that.”

Other attorneys who are experts in federal law concurred that the amount of time elapsed so far is not unusual given the complexity of the investigation and the charges.

“It’s not uncommon for cases like this to drag on for a much as two years or more,” said David Debold, an attorney with Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, a Washington, D.C., law firm that specializes in federal criminal law.

Ciavarella and Conahan are accused of improperly accepting money from the one-time co-owner and the builder of the PA Child Care and Western PA Child Care juvenile centers that were utilized by the county.

Like all criminal cases, prosecutors are required to turn over to the defense certain evidence that is the basis of the charges. That evidence typically includes documents, as well as the identity and statements of witnesses who plan to testify.

Prosecutors allege, in part, that Ciavarella and Conahan extorted money from attorney Robert Powell, who formerly co-owned the centers, as a reward for sending juveniles there. They and Powell are further accused engaging in a series of complex financial transactions to hide the source of the money Powell paid.

Investigations of this type present a daunting challenge to both prosecutors and defense attorneys as they involve an intricate analysis of complex financial transactions, attorneys say.

“It’s complicated and a slow process,” said attorney William Costopoulos of Lemoyne, who specializes in federal criminal law. “The delay should not be perceived as favoritism toward the judges, nor is the delay a jockeying move by the government. They’re as caught up in what’s going on as the defendants.”

In addition to pre-trial investigations, it’s expected the defense will file a host of pre-trial motions that will challenge various aspects of the case, Debold said. Those motions were due Jan. 29, but Kosik recently extended that deadline to March 1.

Flora declined to comment on what, if any, motions might be filed. But Debold said, at a minimum, he believes the defense will file a motion challenging the honest services charges.

The constitutionality of that statute is now being reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, which recently heard arguments in two cases. The high court is expected to rule later this year.

Debold said Ciavarella and Conahan would have to raise the issue in their case in order to benefit from the Supreme Court ruling, should it overturn the statute.

Debold is not personally involved in the Ciavarella or Conahan cases. His opinion is based on his knowledge of federal law and information he’s learned about the case from media reports.

Other potential pre-trial motions could include a motion seeking to suppress evidence and a change of venue due to the amount of publicity the case has received, he said.

“These are the types of things that delay things. The biggest factor will be how quickly the judge acts on the motions once the government replies,” Debold said.

While she’s frustrated by the delay, Transue said she doesn’t begrudge the ex-judges for zealously defending themselves.

She does find it ironic, however, that Ciavarella and Conahan are benefiting from procedural safeguards that were lacking during the juvenile hearings of her daughter and others.

“Just like these individuals deserve justice, our children did, too,” Transue said. “They deserved a fair trial and to be represented by an attorney and to be read their rights and understand their rights.”

Hillary was 15 when she appeared before Ciavarella in 2007. She had been charged with harassment for creating a fake page on the social networking Web site MySpace that mocked a school official.

Like hundreds of other juveniles who appeared before Ciavarella, Hillary was not represented by an attorney. Laurene Transue said she considered hiring a lawyer, but the police officer and probation officials assured her it wasn’t necessary given such a minor charge.

She was stunned when, after a hearing that lasted less than three minutes, Ciavarella sent Hillary away to a youth camp.

Transue’s case was the catalyst that led to the unprecedented ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in October that vacated the convictions of roughly 6,000 juveniles who appeared before Ciavarella from 2003 to 2008.

The court based its ruling on a report by special master Arthur Grim, who found Ciavarella routinely violated juveniles’ rights to a fair trial by allowing them to appear without an attorney and by failing to conduct a state-mandated colloquy – a series of questions that ensures a defendant understands the rights he or she is giving up when pleading guilty.

Although she remains angry about what happened to her daughter, Laurene Transue said she does not wish that fate on Ciavarella and Conahan.

“I’ve heard folks say they should do to them what they did to the kids, but I’m the exact opposite. I don’t want revenge or retaliation,” she said. “How can I say it was wrong to do this to my daughter and then say I want you to do this to these people?”

Transue said she knows it will take time, but she has faith that Ciavarella and Conahan will some day be held accountable.

“I do understand the wheels of justice turn slowly. I just hope everyone keeps in mind, this is what should have been done for our children,” she said.

Overcast 61°

News

Related headlines

Place Quick Ads