Luzerne County Judges

September 25, 2009

Juvie group: Ex-judge’s plea change irrelevant

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

HARRISBURG – Attorneys for the Juvenile Law Center say former judge Mark Ciavarella’s withdrawal of his guilty plea to corruption charges should not impact the state Supreme Court’s evaluation of whether to accept a report that recommends vacating all juvenile convictions under Ciavarella over a five-year period.

In a legal brief filed Thursday, attorney Marsha Levick of the JLC rebuts county prosecutors’ claims that Ciavarella’s plea withdrawal negated the factual basis upon which specially appointed master Arthur Grim based his opinion.

Ciavarella and his co-defendant, Michael Conahan, pleaded guilty in February to charges they improperly accepted millions of dollars in connection with the operation and construction of two juvenile detention centers the county utilized. The ex-judges withdrew the plea in August after a federal judge rejected the terms of the deal.

In court documents filed Sept. 9, District Attorney Jacqueline Musto Carroll said the factual basis for Grim’s findings no longer exist. She asked that the matter be returned to county court for further evidentiary hearings.

Levick contends that even if Ciavarella no longer admits to his alleged crimes, there is ample other evidence to support Grim’s findings that Ciavarella engaged in judicial misconduct.

That evidence includes information federal prosecutors cited in accepting the guilty pleas of attorney Robert Powell, who co-owned the two centers, and Robert Mericle, who built the facilities. Both men have admitted they paid Ciavarella and Conahan $2.8 million from 2003 to 2008.

Grim’s Aug. 12 report recommended that the convictions of all juveniles who appeared before Ciavarella from 2003 to 2008 be vacated and that prosecutors be barred from retrying all but a handful of those cases. The Supreme Court will make the final determination.

Musto Carroll agrees the convictions should be vacated. But she argues barring retrials does not take into consideration the public’s interest in seeing justice served.

But Levick argues that the vast majority of youths impacted have already completed the treatment programs prescribed for them, therefore retrying them would serve no societal purpose.

The Supreme Court will review Levick’s and Musto Carroll’s filings and issue a ruling at a later date.

Tweet	Follow @TLnews

Send Question or Remark to the Publisher