Top Penn. Attorney General to Stand Trial for Perjury

Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane is going to trial because she is accused of leaking secret grand jury information to the press, lying under oath, and ordering aides to illegally snoop through computer files to keep tabs on an investigation into the leak. Her aide is said to have left a  box containing the confidential documents between the door and screen that a reporter later picked up.  She is said to have leaked a confidential grand jury memo and transcript related to the Mondesire case to a news reporter to embarrass rival prosecutors involved in the case.

The detective who investigated Kane said that the leak caused Mondesire personal and family distress, and he was forced to close his charity because donations stopped after the newspaper story. Kane's main defense attorney, Gerald Shargel, said that Mondesire already lost his reputation when articles came out in 2010 regarding his bad finances and he can't lose his reputation a second time. This is another way of saying "you can't lose what you don't have."  

Mondesire was not charged with any crime in his case.

The first witness that testified at the preliminary hearing was David Peifer, who is Kane's agent in charge of special investigations. He testified that the article by the newspaper contained secret information that he gave to Kane. He also confirmed the authenticity of an email that Kane copied and sent to Peifer that contained grand jury information and the newspaper article.

The second witness was investigative detective Paul Bradbury who testified that she lied to the grand jury last November about seeing secret information Peifer gave her. He also said that Deputy Attorney General Bruce Beemer told the grand jury that Kane demonstrated that she knew confidential information.

Before these charges were brought against her, Kane had discovered hundreds of pornographic images, videos and jokes circulating around the court system related to the child sex abuse case against Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky. After she exposed this information last summer, six persons were fired, 23 were reprimanded, and two high-profile persons, including a state Supreme Court judge, resigned.  Kane claims the current charges against her are in retaliation for her part in exposing widespread misconduct within the local courts.

The perjury conviction by itself could lead to a prison sentence up to seven years. She faces other charges including false swearing, obstruction of administration of law, official oppression, and conspiracy. Her next court appearance is scheduled for October 14, 2015 for a formal arraignment. She has not entered in a plea yet, but she has publicly said that she hasn't committed any crimes.

Comments from Allen:

Is this a case of "He said, she said?"  If it can be documented, through unbiased sources, that Kane lied under oath, a bad motive from another prosecutor will not save her.  The defense of retaliation is only relevant insofar as any witness giving factual testimony against Kane is someone who has a retaliatory motive.  If the witness has no motive to lie, and is unconnected to the court turmoil caused by Kane's exposing naughty emails, Kane's exposing those emails may not even be admissible in court.  It appears the defense in this case wants to portray Kane as a hero-done-wrong by The Man, so her attorneys will be working overtime to try to find some connection between the email scandal and those willing to testify against her.  

The prosecutor in this case will try to prove as much of this case as possible through documents.

It is often said, in criminal cases, that the defendant does not have to prove anything; the prosecutor has the burden of proof on all elements of the crime charged.  While this is technically true, when there is evidence that Kane had confidential access to documents that found their way into local newspaper stories, information that supported her and made her opponents look bad, she is going to have to respond to that evidence with a very logical explanation for how that all happened.  In some cases this can be done; in some cases, a truly innocent defendant will just turn to the jury and say, "I don't know how this happened, I only know I didn't do it."  If several people had access to the information, the jury may conclude the prosecutor failed to meet its burden of proof.  On the other hand, if Kane was the only one with access to the information printed in the press, the odds are not in her favor.

***********************************************************************************************************************

Allen Browning is an attorney in Idaho Falls, Idaho who handles personal injury and criminal defense. He has over 30 years of experience and handled thousands of cases. Allen handles cases from all over Idaho. Call (208) 542-2700 to set up a free consultation if you are facing legal trouble or you have been involved in an accident.

Also, check out browninglaw.net for more information about Allen and Browning Law.

Allen Browning can help with all personal injury claims including motor vehicle accidents,truck accidents, auto accidents, serious and disabling accidents, and wrongful death claims.

Allen Browning is an Idaho Falls attorney who can also help with drunk driving (DUI), traffic violations, Felony, Misdemeanor, Domestic Violence, Drug Crimes, Theft, Juvenile Crimes, battery and assault charges, Violent Crimes, and Probation/Parole Violations. He is one of the most experienced and successful criminal defense attorneys in Idaho.


Allen is able to provide his services if the incident occurs in the following Idaho Areas: American Falls, Arco, Blackfoot, Boise, Burley, Driggs, Idaho Falls, Malad City, Pocatello, Rexburg, Rigby, Salmon, St. Anthony, Twin Falls, Bannock County, Bingham County, Bonneville County, Butte County, Cassia County, Clark County, Fremont County, Jefferson County, Lemhi County, Madison County, Oneida County, Power County, Teton County, and Twin Falls County.    
Sources for more information:
http://6abc.com/politics/judge-holds-pa-ag-kathleen-kane-for-trial/953936/

 http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pennsylvanias-top-prosecutor-kathleen-kane-ordered-to-stand-trial/

http://www.wtae.com/news/pennsylvania-attorney-general-kathleen-kane-in-court-to-face-charges/34884858

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

7 Things Lawyers Can't Tell Jurors

Image
 It is a trial lawyer's job to educate jurors, and tell them what they need to know in order to decide cases. Despite this, there are many things, true things, that lawyers are not allowed to tell jurors directly in statements to the jury or indirectly through testimony of their witnesses. Lawyers know these things, though, and I thought you might like to know some of things. #1. A lawyer can't tell the jurors anything that happened during settlement negotiations. He cannot let the jurors know, when asking them to make the defendant pay his client $100,000 that the defendant agreed to pay him $80,000 prior to the trial. The reason for this is that you want settlement negotiations to be very open. You don't want to damage a negotiation session because someone is afraid that what they say will get repeated to a jury if you don't strike a deal. #2 In Idaho, a lawyer can't tell the jurors that the defendant has insurance. In many other states, he can. Bec...
Read more

OBAMA APPOINTEE DENIES GIULIANI ABILITY TO DEFEND HIMSELF, RESULTS IN $148 MILLION JUDGMENT

Image
In the aftermath of the January 6, 2021 protests, Rudy Giuliani has been ordered to pay over $148 million in damages to two Georgia election workers named by the former New York mayor.  What has not been explained to the general public is that there was never any trial concerning whether Mr. Giuliani had actually slandered or libeled these two persons.   In the case of Giuliani, the two Georgia election workers listed as plaintiffs in the suit against Giuliani sued him for saying they engaged in what amounted to election fraud.  They are allowed to ask the defendant ex-mayor for documents relevant to their suit and to his defense. These women brought their case against Giuliani in a jurisdiction that is heavily populated with Democrats.  They could have sued in their home state, Georgia, but did not. They wanted a jury pool of anti-Trump democrats, so they sued in Washington, D.C. They managed to get an incredibly biased Barack Obama-appointed, anti-Trump judge....
Read more

Man Framed by Prosecutor Released After 29 Years in Prison Seeking Lawsuit

Image
19 year old, Charise Kamps, was found raped and strangled to death in her apartment in June 1980. Ralph Armstrong told the police that both of them were at the apartment alone doing cocaine before leaving to go see friends around 9:30 pm. Police said that they learned that Armstrong owed Kamp's boyfriend $400 and witnesses saw Armstrong handing Kamps money that night. However, the money was not found in the apartment, and Armstrong deposited $315 in his bank the next day.The defense argued that he got the money from his brother. One of the neighbors saw a lean, muscular man about 5 feet 5 inches tall with long, dark hair drive up to the apartment. Before the identification process, the police had the witness hypnotized. He was shown a photograph of Armstrong, and After being hypnotized, the witness changed the height of the man he saw. Later at a lineup to have the witness select the man he saw, he chose Armstrong. The other people in the lineup were police officers in wigs...
Read more