Judges withdraw guilty pleas

SCRANTON – The decision by Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan to withdraw their guilty pleas to corruption charges could result in the former judges facing more charges than were contained in the plea deals they signed.

Ciavarella and Conahan withdrew their pleas Monday afternoon, hours after Senior U.S. District Judge Edwin Kosik denied their motion to reconsider his July 31 ruling that rejected a plea agreement that called for them to serve 87 months in prison.

The development carries significant implications for both prosecutors and the defendants.

Ciavarella and Conahan now face the possibility that the U.S. Attorney’s Office will seek to indict them on additional charges beyond the honest services fraud and tax evasion counts that were included in the plea agreement.

William Manifesto of Pittsburgh, a defense attorney who specializes in federal law, said in a previous interview that there are a number of offenses, including money laundering and mail fraud, that prosecutors could likely bring. That could result in significantly more prison time if they are convicted of all counts.

But prosecutors also have a lot at stake. They’re now faced with the possibility of having to take the highly complex case involving intricate financial transactions to trial.

Acting U.S. Attorney Dennis Pfannenschmidt declined to comment on the case. In a previous interview, Assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon Zubrod, one of the lead attorneys in the case, acknowledged the difficulties it presented.

One of the charges against the men – honest service fraud -- involves an extremely complex legal premise, Zubrod said in an interview after the former judges entered their pleas on Feb. 12. He and defense attorneys each predicted that charge alone could be subject to years of legal challenges before the case even goes to trial.

“I would suspect, given the nature of this case, it’s going to be a long process, but I can’t tell you how long,” Al Flora Jr., one of Ciavarella’s attorneys, said Monday.

Ciavarella, the county’s longtime juvenile court judge, and Conahan were charged in January in connection with a more than $2.6 million kickback scheme. Prosecutors said the men accepted money in exchange for rulings that benefited the PA and Western PA Child Care juvenile detention centers that were utilized by the county.

Flora said prosecutors must now decide how they wish to proceed. He said they could seek an indictment, although there remains a possibility that the defense and prosecutors could try to work out a new plea agreement.

“In theory that’s always a possibility. That’s not necessarily what will or can happen in this case,” he said.

A new plea agreement would also be subject to Kosik’s approval. Even if the defense and prosecutors could agree on set sentence, plea agreements typically require defendants to accept responsibility for their conduct. What constitutes “acceptance” has been a key area of dispute in the Conahan and Ciavarella case.

Flora, his co-counsel, William Ruzzo, and Conahan’s attorney, Philip Gelso, worked with federal prosecutors for months to hammer out the plea agreement. But Kosik flatly rejected the deal, saying he did not believe the former judges had demonstrated they accepted responsibility for their conduct.

Kosik based his ruling in part on Ciavarella’s public denial of allegations he incarcerated juveniles for profit. Kosik was also displeased with Conahan’s refusal to discuss the motivation for his conduct with federal probation officials and actions Conahan allegedly took to thwart probation employees who were conducting a pre-sentence investigation.

In the motion for reconsideration filed Thursday, Flora argued Ciavarella was only trying to clarify a misconception regarding the charges to which he pleaded. Gelso argued Conahan had a constitutional right to remain silent regarding any activity beyond the “offense of conviction,” or the crimes to which he pleaded guilty.

In denying the motion, Kosik did not address Ciavarella’s claims. He instead took aim at Conahan, noting that probation department officials had described Conahan’s post-guilty plea conduct as “scandalous.”

“The defense claims that a defendant is not required to admit relevant conduct beyond the offense of conviction,” Kosik wrote. “The court generally agrees, but the defendant was expected to admit relevant conduct related to the scandalous nature of the offense of conviction.”

Gelso declined to comment on Kosik’s ruling. Flora said he disagrees with the judge but respects his decision.

“There was a concerted, good-faith effort on the part of the government and Mark Ciavarella to negotiate a plea which we felt was in the best interest of all parties concerned,” Flora said. “The government made every effort to try to convince the judge the plea should be accepted. We made our pitch to the judge, but he ruled against both sides.”

It was not immediately clear Monday what, if any, impact the plea withdrawals will have on Conahan’s and Ciavarella’s ability to collect their pensions.

In June, the State Employees Retirement System denied Ciavarella’s claim for benefits and halted the monthly check Conahan had been receiving. That decision was based on the entry of their pleas on Feb. 12.

Now that the plea deal is gone, it raises questions as to whether the judges would be entitled to collect their pensions pending resolution of the criminal case. Officials from SERS were not immediately available for comment Monday regarding the potential impact.