Federal judge rejects Orie Melvin's latest legal claim

Sign up for one of our email newsletters.Updated 4 hours ago Prosecutors didn't withhold any evidence that would have proved former state Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin's innocence in her political corruption case, a federal judge ruled. Her...

Federal judge rejects Orie Melvin's latest legal claim

Sign up for one of our email newsletters.

Updated 4 hours ago

Prosecutors didn't withhold any evidence that would have proved former state Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin's innocence in her political corruption case, a federal judge ruled.

Her attorney, Patrick Casey, couldn't be reached for comment.

“Judge Hornak's decision is not surprising,” said Mike Manko, spokesman for the Allegheny County District Attorney's Office. “It has been our position all along that the issues being raised on appeal were issues that were litigated during the trial. They had no merit then and continue to have no merit.”

An Allegheny County jury in February 2013 convicted Melvin of four felonies — three counts of theft of services and one count of conspiracy — and two misdemeanor counts of misapplication of entrusted property and tampering with physical evidence.

The charges stemmed from allegations that Melvin used her staff and that of her sister, former state Sen. Jane Orie, to do political work during her 2003 and 2009 campaigns.

Common Pleas Judge Lester G. Nauhaus sentenced Melvin to three years of house arrest, two years of probation and community service in a soup kitchen. He fined her $55,000 and ordered her to pay $128,000 in restitution.

Melvin, 61, of Marshall claimed a federal appeals court decision in August changed the case law on her claim that county prosecutors failed to search for exculpatory evidence on computers seized from the Senate Republicans.

U.S. District Judge Mark Hornak ruled Thursday that the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals case dealt with a situation where police had control of the evidence. In Melvin's case, prosecutors didn't have control of the legislative computers.

The judge presiding in the criminal case had another judge review the computers to determine whether they contained evidence relevant to the case, he said.

Since prosecutors didn't have control of the computers, they had no duty to search them for evidence for or against Melvin, Hornak ruled. Melvin also failed to rebut a previous ruling that none of the evidence she claims was on the computers was relevant to her case, he said.

Brian Bowling is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at 724-850-1218, bbowling@tribweb.com or via Twitter @TribBrian.

Our editors found this article on this site using Google and regenerated it for our readers.

NEXT NEWS