August 25, 2009

Judges withdraw guilty pleas

Ciavarella, Conahan might now face more charges than in plea agreement

By Terrie Morgan-Besecker tmorgan@timesleader.com
Law & Order Reporter

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.

Read more Luzerne County Judges articles

click image to enlarge

Luzerne County judges Mark Ciavarella, left, and Michael Conahan walk out of the Federal Courthouse earlier this year in Scranton.

S. John Wilkin/times leader file photo

Related headlines

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.

Terrie Morgan-Besecker, a Times Leader staff writer, may be reached at 570-829-7179.


Special Offer: $2.00/week Home Delivery

17 Reader Comments

Questions or comments? Here's how to reach us.
Join the discussion on our Facebook page

COMMENT HERE

Comment*:


Name*:


E-mail*:

* These fields are required.



Jeff said...

Sounds like the two scum thought this over very well, and it's going to cost the taxpayers plenty. At this rate, they may NEVER see prison.

August 25, 2009 at 3:55 AM

walt said...

they better not collect one dime,they already plead guilty,but now the deal is gone,so there are more charges likely in the works,hopefuly RICO CHARGES,including their wives for money laundering,and what's up with the daughter quitting so quickly?sounds like there's a lot more to come,poor little boys got caught,that's the only thing their sorry about!

August 25, 2009 at 3:58 AM

Justice said...

Who pays the legal fees allowing these two to continue their gaming?

August 25, 2009 at 5:56 AM

HP said...

Put their butts in jail,Guilty as they admitted to,just because they can't determine their sentence they think they can control their fate.Their butts belong to the people they abused and the public they mislead.Every dog has his day and their day is coming. While they await their trial ,let them wait in jail and see how much they keep a smile on their sneering faces.Don't give up people make them be responsible for their actions.They are not above the law,they just think they are.

August 25, 2009 at 6:43 AM

karen said...

What is going on here. Why are they giving these guys so much rope. It is time to just let them hang themselves. Any other citizen would be in jail awaiting all these decisions. They are guilty and eberyone knows it. Just ask the juveniles they dealt with. What a sin this is with our judicial system. They know exactly what they can get away with, hell they are previous judges. Pity! K

August 25, 2009 at 7:05 AM

Barry said...

"He and defense attorneys each predicted that charge alone could be subject to years of legal challenges before the case even goes to trial." All of this is a ploy to keep these two crooks out of jail.

August 25, 2009 at 7:43 AM

Cinny said...

PUT THEM IN PRISON!!!! Enough is enough already... I think the community deserves to see these two clowns behind bars!

August 25, 2009 at 7:55 AM

WOODSY said...

SO WHAT'S NEXT? A CHANGE OF VENUE BECAUSE THEY WILL CLAIM THEY CANNOT GET A FAIR TRIAL? I GUESS THEY WILL HAVE TO GO TO MARS, BECAUSE THEIR CHARGES HAVE MADE NATIONAL NEWS AND SOON TO BE INCLUDED IN A MICHAEL MOORE MOVIE. PUT THEM IN JAIL AND LET THEM AWAIT THEIR DAY IN COURT, WHY SHOULD THEY BE ALLOWED TO RUB THE PUBLIC'S NOSES IN THEIR ARROGANCE

August 25, 2009 at 8:11 AM

Fletch said...

I predicted this in my post of yesterday. Fine, so now---arrest them like any other criminal charged with a crime and either leave them in jail or have them post bail util their trial. There is no reason in the world these two should be allowed to roam free now.

August 25, 2009 at 8:11 AM

pringle hill said...

Something smells here, at least with the plea agreement, these two crooks were going to do some time. Now the DA has got to prove the case. Is this a new conspriracy?

August 25, 2009 at 8:30 AM

TaxPayer & Mom said...

Still about their pensions??someonw wake up. Does anyone there know enough to get this thing over with and lock these two up.??Mdaking all good citizens SICK.

August 25, 2009 at 9:14 AM

Harley said...

A total slap in the face of the good citizens of this entire country.

August 25, 2009 at 9:29 AM

Me said...

It's a downright shame (although not surprising) that these two Ex-judges have more options, rights, privileges and protection by law to skirt the charges against them (which is a heck of a lot more justice than they gave others).

August 25, 2009 at 10:27 AM

J.W. said...

I love it. Now they are looking at a potential of 87 years rather than 87 months. It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of fellows.

August 25, 2009 at 11:05 AM

Lonegunmen said...

this thing can't go to trial, just watch and see. Too many politicos higher up on the food chain will get dragged into it. I see another plea deal in the making, a certain longtime State Senator will petition the court on behalf of the two culprits.

August 25, 2009 at 11:08 AM

Get ready for a long ride said...

What a surprise. These jerks are playing the system, and who better to do so than judges? This could go on for years. Imagine, seeing them day after day in the papers and on the news, constant reminders of greed and corruption. Years of expense and time going through the process, while they enjoy freedom. It is a disturbing thought that these men, once regarded as some of the highest in the court system here, are, in fact, bottom feeders of the worst kind.

August 25, 2009 at 11:29 AM

Mike said...

The Feds should throw every charge they can think of at them. Then, the gov't should charge the wives.

August 25, 2009 at 3:57 PM


Most Viewed Luzerne County Judges Stories in Past 7 Days

1. Judicial Conduct Board grilled
2. Judge pleads guilty in traffic accident
3. Court employees, job titles and salaries
4. Pa. board needs to provide complaint
5. JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER TIMELINE
6. Cosgrove becomes county’s 7th judge
7. Public still waiting for ex-county judges’ court date
8. Judge explains restitution decision

Most E-Mailed Luzerne County Judges Stories in Past 7 Days

1. Who’s been charged?
2. Judge pleads guilty in traffic accident


The Times LeaderThe Weekender - NEPA's #1 Arts and Entertainment WeeklyThe Abington Journal - Serving the Clarks Summit area of Lackawanna CountyThe Dallas Post - Serving the Back Mountain of Luzerne CountyThe Pittston Dispatch - Serving the upper Wyoming ValleyEl Mensajero - El único semanario Hispano de noticias en el Noreste de Pennsylvania.
The Times Leader Scranton Edition - Serving all of Lackawanna CountyThe Hazleton Times - Serving all of Southern Luzerne CountyThe Tunkhannock Times - Serving all of Wyoming CountyFive Mountain Times - Serving Western Luzerne County
The Wilkes-Barre Publishing Company