Luzerne County Judges

misconduct charges trial

PHILADELPHIA – There’s been rumors for months about an alleged federal probe into the Luzerne County judiciary.

Read more Luzerne County Judges articles

In a few minutes Monday, Judge Ann Lokuta shed some light on the issue: She confirmed she spoke with the FBI about Judge Michael Conahan’s practices.

But how that meeting came about and what it led to remains unclear.

Lokuta did not acknowledge that she initiated contact with the investigators.

She testified that she had a conversation with a federal attorney. Then, after that conversation, she agreed to meet with the FBI about Conahan’s court scheduling practices.

That was it.

There was no mention of when the meeting took place, or whether it led to a further investigation.

Lokuta’s attorney, Louis Sinatra, has said the probe was part of the motive for Lokuta getting hit with misconduct charges by the state Judicial Conduct Board.

Lokuta’s direct examination concluded Monday, the 10th day of testimony in her trial on the charges.

She was later cross-examined by the conduct board’s deputy chief counsel, Francis J. Puskas II. That will continue today.

Puskas has called 30 witnesses to testify about Lokuta’s antics, including her handling of cases, in an attempt to show she violated the state constitution and code of conduct over the years.

Part of that testimony came from former president judges Conahan and Patrick J. Toole. They have said Lokuta was defiant to their orders and a slacker.

Lokuta had already testified that those judges yelled at her, failed to work with her, tried to sway her rulings and took cases away from her. She continued explaining that to the state Court of Judicial Discipline on Monday.

Lokuta told them how Conahan would repeatedly, without warning or explanation, take her cases. She went through them case by case.

One of them involved courthouse worker Molly Sheridan, who was appealing a suspension of her driver’s license. The case was assigned to Lokuta and put on her docket in 2003. But the day it was scheduled for court, Lokuta learned Conahan postponed the case and assigned it to himself.

When Conahan held the hearing, it was conducted behind closed doors, out of the public’s view, she said.

And Conahan ruled in favor of Sheridan, the county’s protection-from-abuse coordinator.

In the past, Conahan had said he closed the hearing because he was having difficulty hearing.

That switch, Lokuta said, flew in the face of one of Conahan’s own directives. Before that, he had issued an order indicating that once a case was assigned to a judge, that judge had to dispose of it.

Like the other cases, Conahan never explained why he took the Sheridan case from Lokuta, the judge testified.

Judge Richard Sprague, with the Court of Judicial Discipline, asked if Lokuta ever filed a misconduct complaint against Conahan for his move.

She didn’t.

But she did agree to speak with the FBI about Conahan’s practices, she said.

She never said what, if anything, that meeting led to.

The removal of those cases from her docket wasn’t the only workload-related issue Lokuta testified about Monday. Sinatra guided her through a number of Lokuta’s dockets to show the amount of cases Lokuta was scheduled to hear.

“I work very hard,” Lokuta said. “I have a great volume of cases before me. I’m proud that I’m current on all my cases. I believe I conduct a scholarly review of my matters.”

But that’s difficult when Conahan kept switching her assignments, she said. At one point, Conahan told Lokuta he could no longer have the court administrator’s office schedule cases for her, as he does for all other judges.

That led to havoc in her courtroom, she said.

“It was complete and utter chaos,” she said.

That’s because parties were having a hard time getting clarity on when or if cases would be heard. Some parties were going to other judges to get a hearing date but not notifying the opposing party of the move, she said.

“It was a court which was spiraling out of control and I had absolutely no ability to stop that spiral,” she said.

That led to Lokuta explaining, in court, to all the parties, why the court appeared to be in confusion or why their case might not be heard, she said. She claims she was not attacking her colleagues or court administrator, but was just explaining, she said.

“I was attempting to address to the lay people,” she said.

Even under those circumstances, she was able to shake a backlog and bring the docket “up to speed,” she said. “I saw a system that was completely breaking down.”