Luzerne County Judges

By Terrie Morgan-Besecker tmorgan@timesleader.com
Law & Order Reporter
Terrie Morgan-Besecker on Facebook   |   @TLTerrieMorgan on Twitter

HARRISBURG – The chief counsel for the Judicial Conduct Board admitted Monday that he was remiss in investigating a 2006 complaint filed against former Luzerne County Judge Michael Conahan, but denied his actions were designed to protect the disgraced jurist because he was a key witness in the case against former Judge Ann Lokuta.

Read more Luzerne County Judges articles

click image to enlarge

Joseph Massa, chief counsel for the Judicial Conduct Board, gives testimony on Monday in Harrisburg at the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice public hearings.

PETE G. WILCOX/THE TIMES LEADER

click image to enlarge

Related headlines

• Lokuta attorneys: JCB statements help former judge’s appeal

Select images available for purchase in the
Times Leader Photo Store

To see additional photos, visit www.times

leader.com

Testifying before the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice, attorney Joseph Massa said he personally reviewed the Conahan complaint that was filed with the board in September 2006, but he did not assign an investigator to look into the allegations.

Massa said he later decided that some allegations contained in the complaint warranted a full investigation. He brought the complaint to the board’s attention in June 2007, but a memorandum he authored that detailed the allegations did not include some important information, including allegations Conahan engaged in case fixing.

It was one of several missteps in the handling of the Conahan complaint, Massa told commission members. Questioned by member Jason Legg, Massa struggled to explain why those missteps occurred.

“Would case fixing be a serious or significant matter?” Legg asked.

“It would,” Massa replied.

“Looking back, can you give us any reason why that would not be included in your memorandum?” Legg asked.

“No,” Massa replied. He later clarified his response to stress the omission was not intentional.

Massa was one of three current or former JCB officials who testified before the commission in the final public hearing it will hold regarding its investigation into failings within Luzerne County’s juvenile justice system.

The commission has also been examining actions – or lack thereof – that the JCB took in investigating the Conahan complaint. Massa’s testimony Monday provided the most candid admission that mistakes were made.

Massa said one of the key issues was a lack of manpower within the JCB, which had only two investigators to handle 67 counties at the time the Conahan complaint was received. Much of the board’s resources were tied up with the investigation of Lokuta, whose case went to trial in September 2007.

Massa acknowledged he received the anonymous complaint in September 2006, but never brought it to the board’s attention until June 2007. In hindsight, he said he should have brought it to the board sooner. “Had it fallen through the cracks?” Legg asked.

“It had,” Massa replied.

Massa also could not explain why the Conahan investigation, which was tabled at the June 2007 board meeting, was never brought up again. It was supposed to be placed on the board’s agenda for its October 2007 meeting, but Massa acknowledged he failed to do so.

“I don’t have an explanation,” Massa said. “I hold myself accountable. It was on my list. There was nothing nefarious in terms of subterfuge.”

In a written statement to the juvenile commission, the JCB’s board said Massa requested the Conahan investigation be tabled because Conahan was scheduled to testify against Lokuta, who was accused of violating judicial canons by abusing court staff and attorneys.

Massa disputed that, however, saying it was a board member, not he, who sought to table the matter.

“The statement from the board makes it sound as if the only reason for the continuance was that Conahan was one of your witnesses,” Legg said.

“Sir, that is not my recollection,” Massa said.

“Would you as chief counsel ever defer an investigation of witnesses in order to protect them?” Legg asked.

“Absolutely not,” Massa replied.

Massa said that, in hindsight, he should have provided the board with a copy of the Conahan complaint, not just his memorandum that summarized the allegations. The board has since altered its practices to provide more oversight of decisions made by him and other staff members.

The commission also heard testimony Monday from Patrick Judge, a former business partner of Conahan’s who sat on the JCB at the time the complaint against Conahan was received. Judge testified he immediately recused himself from any discussions of that complaint.

The commission also heard from attorney Sam Stretton, who previously represented Lokuta in her misconduct case. Stretton also previously served as solicitor for former Luzerne County Controller Steve Flood.

Stretton said he told JCB attorney Francis Puskas, who prosecuted Lokuta, of concerns about Conahan and Ciavarella. He acknowledged he never filed an official complaint with the JCB, however, because he did not have solid proof to back up his suspicions.

The commission will now meet to discuss evidence presented at the hearings and prepare a report of recommendations for the state Supreme Court. The report is due May 31.