Wecht was born to Jewish immigrant parents in the tiny mining village of Bobtown, Greene County, Pennsylvania. His father, Nathan Wecht, was a Lithuanian born storekeeper and his Ukrainian born mother Fannie Rubenstein was a homemaker and helped out in the store. When Cyril was young, Nathan moved the family to the Hill District neighborhood of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and opened a neighborhood grocery store.

As a teenager he hoped to become a professional musician, and he was concertmaster of the University of Pittsburgh Orchestra during his undergraduate years. He earned a B.S. from the University of Pittsburgh in 1952, an M.D. degree from the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine in 1956, an LLB from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law in 1962, and a J.D. degree from the University of Maryland School of Law. After serving in the United States Air Force, he became a forensic pathologist. He served on the staff of St. Francis Hospital in Pittsburgh before becoming Deputy Coroner of Allegheny County in 1965. Four years later he was elected coroner. Wecht served as coroner from 1970 to 1980, and again from 1996 to 2006.

His wife, Sigrid Wecht, is an attorney in Pittsburgh. They have four children: David (Valerie), a Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County; Dan (Anna), a neurosurgeon in Pittsburgh; Ingrid (Harold), an OB/GYN in Pittsburgh; and, Benjamin (Flynne), a writer and is in charge of the Wecht Institute. Wecht has eleven grandchildren, Dylan , Sophie, Zoe, Gabe, Nathan, Jacob, Sarah, Alex, Macey, Emma, and Jessica.

Wecht became famous appearing on television and consulting on deaths with a high media profile. Some of the cases include; Robert F. Kennedy, Sharon Tate, The Symbionese Liberation Army shootout, John F. Kennedy, The Legionnaires’ Disease panic, Elvis Presley, JonBenét Ramsey, Dr. Herman Tarnower (the Scarsdale diet guru), Danielle van Dam, Sunny von Bülow, the Branch Davidian incident, Vincent Foster, Laci Peterson and most recently Daniel and Anna Nicole Smith. During his career, Wecht has personally performed over fourteen thousand autopsies. He is a clinical professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and an adjunct professor of law at Duquesne University.

Wecht is both outspoken and controversial. In 1979, Dr. Wecht examined Elvis Presley’s medical records for 20/20 and disputed earlier autopsy results suggesting Presley may have had cardiovascular disease. Instead, Dr. Wecht argued Presley died from a lethal drug cocktail overdose. In his book Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey?, he argues that the death of the 6 year old beauty queen was accidental. In Dr. Wecht’s opinion JonBenet Ramsey’s death was likely an accidental result of a sex “game” committed by her father.

Cyril H. Wecht and Pathology Associates

Since 1962, Dr. Wecht has an established private practice. Dr. Wecht has served as a medical-legal and forensic pathology consultant in both civil and criminal cases. Dr. Wecht is continuously consulted by both plaintiffs' and defense attorneys in civil cases, and by both prosecutors and defense attorneys in criminal cases in jurisdictions throughout the United States and abroad. While Dr. Wecht has held public office, he has continue to operate his private forensic pathology consultancy.

Some of Dr. Wecht's forensic consultant engagements have included:

• for the Los Angeles County Medical Examiner Coroner’s Office in regard to the 1968 Robert F. Kennedy assassination, the 1969 Sharon Tate/LaBianca cases, and the 1974 Symbionese Liberation Army Deaths;
• for the Health Hospital, Panama Canal Zone as a member of the Special Expert Panel on American Legionnaires’ Disease (Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Centers for Disease Control)
• for the ABC network television show 20/20 in regard to the John F. Kennedy assassination (in 1976) and the death of Elvis Presley
• U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations, Forensic Pathology Panel
• for the 1991 film JFK

JFK Assassination: House Select Committee on Assassinations (1978)

In 1978 he testified before he House Select Committee on Assassinations as part of a nine member forensic pathology panel. In many of its conclusions, the forensic pathology panel voted 8 to 1, with the dissenting vote being consistently that of Cyril H. Wecht.Wecht requested to testify in person before the committee.

Mr. PURDY. Dr. Wecht, what are the major conclusions of the forensic pathology panel with which you are in disagreement?

Dr. WECHT. The major disagreement is the single-bullet theory which I deem to be the very essence of the Warren Commission report's conclusions and all the other corroborating panels and groups since that time. It is the sine qua non of the Warren Commission report's conclusions vis-a-vis a sole assassin. Without the single-bullet theory, there cannot be one assassin, whether it is Oswald or anybody else.I am in disagreement with various other conclusions of the panel.

Wecht introduced the synchronized-bullet theory to the committee. "If the President had been struck in the head with a second bullet, then it would have been fired in synchronized fashion simultaneous with the shot that did strike him in the rear of the head, as has been presented here today." He theorized the bullet could have been made of frangible ammunition. "It is, therefore, possible that that extensive deformity of the scalp, underlying galea, underlying bone calvarium, could also be the locus of the second shot of some kind of frangible ammunition." However he said "it is a remote possibility and I certainly cannot equate that with reasonable medical certainty."

Dr. Wecht was challenged on his veracity regarding his assertions that a frangible or dum-dum bullet was used to destroy JFK’s head by Dr. Charles Perry, one of his fellow pathologists on the House Select Committee on Assassination. Dr.Perry wrote: "I happen to be the co-author of the only paper that has ever been written about the wounding capabilities of frangible bulletsthey are used in shooting galleries[and] are specially designed to break up on the backdrop of thegallery so as not to ricochet and cause injury to either shooters or the people who work in the gallerySuch bullets and the breakup products of [these] bullets are easy to detect in X-rays. There are no such fragments in the X-rays of the late president’s head. There are no frangible bullets fired. I might also add that frangible bullets are produced in .22 caliber loads and they are not produced [for] larger weapons."

Dr. Wecht then stated that his synchronized frangible-bullet theory was "extremely" unlikely and "the evidence is not there" to support it. Dr. Wecht later on asserted that it was possible that the assassin(s) used plastic or glass bullets to kill the president, but added, "I have no basis to set forth a theory that a bullet fired from the president’s right side was composed of nonradiopaque [that is, transparent, and hence, not seen on X-rays] materials such as plastic or glass."."

Dr Wecht's objections were centered in his ballistic theories of the so called "pristine bullet";

" Wrist alone, as I have already said, I believe would have produced more deformation than we see here had those injuries been noted that we demonstrated on a blow-up of Gov. John Connally's wrist X-ray a moment ago"

His photographic analysis of the Zapruder film which led him to conclude the president had been shot before Gov. John Connally;

Dr. WECHT. Yes. President John F. Kennedy has definitely been struck, as seen on F-244, Zapruder frame 225. Gov. John Connally, in my opinion, has not been struck in that frame, as of that frame.

Dr Wecht ...a blowup of Zapruder frame 230, we are told under the single bullet theory that Gov. John Connally, for a period of approximately one and a half seconds, has already been shot through the right chest with the right lung pierced and collapsed, through the right wrist, with the distal end of the radius comminuted and the radial nerve partially severed...the hat is still being held and Governor Connally is not reacting. This is again a very alert individual, under a very special circumstance, and I do not believe or accept for one moment the story that we must accept under the single bullet theory that this gentlemen, at this point, one and a half seconds previously, has already been shot through his chest, through his wrist, and into his left thigh.

and his opinion of the bullet trajectories;

Mr. CORNWELL. ... You wrote an article at one point in Modern Medicine, October 28, 1974, in which you discussed some of the examinations that the FBI had attempted, spectrographic analysis and that sort of thing, at which point after discussing the inconclusiveness of the FBI's examinations, you stated: If it had been found that the composition of the lead in the fragment recovered from Governor Connally's wrist wound was indistinguishable from the composition of the lead in the nearly whole bullet found at Parkland Hospital, that fact alone would lend strong support to the single bullet theory. Do you still have that view?

Dr. WECHT. To some extent, that would be true, but in light of my new knowledge about the trajectory, particularly the vertical trajectory with the upward course through the body, then that statement would be much less definitive, much less positive than it was as expressed by me in that article a few years ago.

Out of the four official examinations into the Kennedy Assassination, Dr. Wecht is the only forensic pathologist who has disagreed with the conclusion that both the single bullet theory and Kennedy’s head wounds are mutually consistent.

Investigation Into The Death of Daniel Smith (2007)

Wecht was hired by Callenders and Co, a Bahamian law firm, to do an independent autopsy on the body of Daniel Smith, the son of Anna Nicole Smith who died while visiting his mother in the Bahamas.Wecht stated Daniel Smith died as a result of the interaction of methadone, a painkiller, and the antidepressants sertraline (Zoloft) and escitalopram (Lexapro).Methadone can alter a person's cardiac electrophysiology; it is known to cause prolongation of the QT segment.

"When that [change] is prolonged, the individual could even lose consciousness, and suffer cardiac disrhythmia... I don’t mean frequently, and certainly not predictably, so tragically, with this young man this is what happened. So I have no question at all as to the cause of death."

Allegheny County Coroner and Medical Examiner

In 1965, Dr. Wecht became Deputy Coroner of Allegheny County. Four years later he was elected Coroner of Allegheny County. Wecht served as coroner from 1970 to 1980, and again from 1996 to 2006. In 2006, Dr. Wecht served briefly as the first Allegheny County Medical Examiner, which replaced the role of County Coroner. Unlike the County Coroner position, which was an elected office, the County Medical Examiner position is an appointed position. Dr. Wecht resigned from the position of Medical Examiner fulfilling an agreement he made with the county that if he was indicted, he would resign his county position.

The Cyril H. Wecht Institute of Forensic Science and Law

In the fall of 2000, the Duquesne University School of Law established the Cyril H. Wecht Institute of Forensic Science and Law. The Wecht Institute offers graduate degree and professional certificate programs in forensic science to a diverse group of students spanning the disciplines of law, nursing, law enforcement, pharmacy, the health sciences, business, the environmental sciences and psychology. The Wecht Institute collaborates with the Duquesne University’s Schools of Law, Nursing, Natural and Environmental Sciences, Business, Pharmacy, and Liberal Arts, as well as other academic institutions.

Books

Wecht has written several books, includingInto EVIDENCE: Truth, Lies and Unresolved Mysteries in the Murder of JFK,Mortal Evidence: The Forensics Behind Nine Shocking Cases,Silent Witness: How Forensic Anthropology Is Used to Solve the World's Toughest Crimes,November 22, 1963: A Reference Guide to the JFK Assassination,Grave Secrets: A Leading Forensic Expert Reveals the Startling Truth about O.J. Simpson, David Koresh, Vincent Foster, and Other Sensational Cases,Handling Soft Tissue Injury Cases: Medical Aspects: Legal Aspects,Preparing and Winning Medical Negligence Cases,Cause of Death,Crime Scene Investigation, andWho Killed JonBenet Ramsey?

Early Years (1965-1985)

In 1965, Dr. Wecht became Deputy Coroner of Allegheny County. Four years later he was elected Coroner of Allegheny County. Wecht served as coroner from 1970 to 1980 (and again from 1996 to 2006).

In 1978, he had been elected chairman of the Allegheny County Democratic Party. One yeat later, Dr. Wecht was elected an Allegheny County Commissioner in 1979. In 1982, he was the Democratic party's nominee to oppose John Heinz for the U.S. Senate seat to which Heinz had first been elected six years previously. Wecht's challenge was unsuccessful: Heinz won 59 percent of the vote.

Wecht and fellow Democratic County Commissioner Tom Foerster were frequently at odds, and battled for control of the Democratic Party in Allegheny County, which Wecht chaired. Although the Democratic Committee rejected Foerster and endorsed Wecht for re-election as commissioner in 1983, the committee paired him with Sheriff Gene Coon, with whom he also had a longstanding political feud. Ultimately Foerster teamed up with former Pittsburgh Mayor Peter F. Flaherty, and the two defeated Wecht and Coon in the primary election for the two Democratic nominations. Wecht then lost the chairmanship of the county's Democratic Party in 1984 to Foerster's hand-picked candidate, Scott Township Tax Collector Ed Stevens. Wecht then sought to become chair of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party that same year, but was defeated by Ed Mezvinsky, a former Congressman from Iowa.

Later Years (1995-2006)

In 1995, Wecht, after 12 years out of public life, was again elected as Allegheny County's Coroner. In 1999, he ran for the newly created position of Allegheny County Chief Executive, defeating one-term minority County Commissioner Mike Dawida in the Democratic primary, but losing to prominent Republican millionaire businessman Jim Roddey in his first bid for elective public office.

While serving as the county’s coroner, Wecht continued to operate a private forensic consulting business on the side known as Wecht Pathology Associates. Wecht Pathology Associates charges clients for examining cases, conducting autopsies, and testifying in civil and criminal trials. In his official capacity as county coroner, Wecht continued to squabbled with DA Zappala, often over deaths that took place during encounters with police.

In the case that is the precursor to Wecht’s federal prosecution, US vs. Wecht, Wecht ruled that Charles Dixon had been suffocated through positional asphyxiation during a 2002 encounter with police officers from Mount Oliver and Pittsburgh. When Wecht ruled the death of Dixon a homicide, DA Zappala refused to press charges against the officers. In response, Wecht, acting in his private capacity as an employee of Wecht Pathology Associates, wrote a medical opinion outlining the officers’ alleged role in Dixon’s death which was utilized by Dixon's family in a civil suit against the county.

In response to Wecht's testimony in the Dixon case, Zappala accused Wecht of violating the federal Hobbs Act, which prohibits public officials from using their offices for private gain. In early 2005, Zappala launched an investigation into whether Wecht had been using county resources to carry out private work ... allegations similar to those Wecht had faced before. By spring of 2005, FBI agents were seizing documents in Wecht’s private and county offices.

Wecht continued to serve as Coroner until the position was eliminated in 2006. County Executive Dan Onorato named him as the county's first appointed Medical Examiner in 2006. By January 2006, a federal grand jury had indicted Wecht on 84 criminal counts, prompting Wecht to step down from his county post per an agreement he made when the investigation became public in 2004 that if indicted he would resign as county coroner.

Allegheny County Criminal Trial (1979-1981)

Wecht's tenure as Allegheny County Coroner was not without controversy. While he was responsible for significant upgrades in the professionalism and technology of the coroner's office during his service in that office from 1970 to 1980, making the Allegheny County Coroner's office one of the best in the nation, Wecht's political career proved controversial due to his opinionated nature and as he put it his unwillingness to "run away from a fight.”

In 1979, the local papers ran the story that Dr. Wecht was accused of performing autopsies for other counties at the county morgue and depositing the fees from these autopsies in his private business' bank account. The story ran in the paper the same day that Dr. Wecht announced his candidacy for county commissioner which sparked allegations that the charges were politically motivated. Wecht responded to the accusations that the funds in question had been used solely to upgrade the office and staff.

After a long investigation, Wecht was indicted on multiple criminal counts that charged Wecht with personally profiting from work at the coroner's office. The details of the criminal charges were that Wecht allegedly transacted approximately $400,000 of his private business work using county facilities and the county morgue. In the spring of 1981, the six week long criminal trial began. Of the initial criminal charges brought against Dr. Wecht in the indictment, all were dismissed except for one, theft of services. After 10 hours of deliberation, the jury in the case acquitted Dr. Wecht on the remaining charge.

Allegheny County Civil Proceedings (1979-1992)

Even though Wecht was cleared of all wrongdoing in the criminal case, he still had a civil surcharge of $390,000 leveled against him by the county controller for mingling private and public work at the morgue. Dr. Wecht denied any liability in relation to the surcharge and countered that any work he did had benefited the county. In 1983, a civil court ruled against Wecht in this matter and found that Dr. Wecht owed the county $172,410. On appeal the original award to the county was increased to $250,000, yet the court proceedings did not conclude with the appeal. The proceedings in relation to the civil matter continued until 1992 when the county and Dr. Wecht reached a settlement. The settlement resulted in Dr. Wecht having to repay the county $200,000, which he made without showing any contrition.

Federal Criminal Trial - United States vs. Dr. Cyril Wecht (2006-2009)

First Federal Trial of United States vs. Dr. Cyril Wecht

On January 28, 2008, the federal trial against Dr. Cyril Wecht began. The court motions and proceedings documented the controversy that were prevalent throughout the trial. Prior to the trial beginning, the defense team twice appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to have the district judge selected to preside over the trial removed. In the first appeal's court decision, the judge panel ruled 2 to 1 in favor of keeping the judge.In the subsequent proceeding, the appeals body reaffirmed the previous opinion.

Speculation amassed that the prosecution of Dr. Wecht was politically motivated since he was a prominent Democrat in the Pittsburgh area and the announcement of the initial indictment was close to the election date of 2006. The controversy around such charges resulted in former Attorney General and Governor of Pennsylvania Dick Thornburgh, a defense lawyer for Dr. Cyril Wecht, being called to testify before a house panel investigating the US Attorneys' Firing Scandal. Thornburgh testified that he felt the case against Dr. Wecht, a nationally prominent forensic pathologist, “would qualify as an ideal target for a Republican U.S. attorney, Mary Beth Buchanan, trying to curry favor with a department which demonstrated that if you play by its rules, you will advance.”During the trial of Dr. Wecht, the judge barred the defense from raising the arguments that the case was politically motivated.Even though neither the defense nor the prosecution were able to raise the speculation that the case was politically motivated during the trial, jurors informed reporters after the trial that they felt by the close of the trial that the case against Dr. Wecht was politically motivated.

In addition to the controversy around the case being politically motivated, controversy amassed around the credibility of the lead FBI Investigator on the case, Brad Orsini. Agent Orsini had previous disciplinary actions against him that included writing other agents' initials on witness interview reports and signing agents' names to chain-of-custody forms and evidence labels. Dr. Wecht's defense team argue successfully for the agent's personal records to be unsealed and attempted to use the information within the records to argue for the exclusion of evidence obtained by Agent Orsini during the investigation. The attempts by Dr. Wecht's defense team proved unsuccessful.The prosecution opted not to call Agent Orsini or any other investigator as a witness during the trial of Dr. Wecht.

The judge attempted to seat an anonymous jury (an action usually reserved only for cases in which jurors' lives may be threatened such as in an organized crime case). After motions from the defense and news media contested the judge's decision, the judge relented and dismissed the request for the seating of an anonymous jury.

Roughly two weeks prior to the start of the trial proceedings, the prosecution attempted to have 43 of out of the 84 counts against Wecht dismissed without prejudice, yet were overruled by the judge that dismissed the charges with prejudice, which bars the charges from being refiled against Dr. Wecht.

The prosecution's case lasted for twenty four days. Upon the prosecution resting their case, the defense rested without calling a single witness to counter the prosecution's case or witnesses presented. After eleven days of deliberation, the case ended with the jury informing the court for a second time that a decision could not be reached and the judge declaring a mistrial. In response to the judge's decision, the prosecution immediately informed the court they planned to retry Dr. Wecht.

Aftermath of First Federal Trial of United States vs. Dr. Cyril Wecht

Since the mistrial, jurors in the first case against Dr. Wecht have raised concern to reporters about FBI agents contacting them after the trial, in some cases personally coming to the jurors' homes, and trying to schedule meetings with the US Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan. When the FBI's contact with the jurors became public, Dr. Wecht's lawyers filed a motion asking the FBI to disclose how it and members of the prosecutor's team were able to locate the jurors immediately after the trial, since the judge had ruled at the start of the trial that the jurors' names were to be kept private and not recorded by either the prosecution team or the defense team. Public concern about the case has risen; Representative Mike Doyle and Representative John Conyers Jr., who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, were among the many who provided statements concerning the prosecution's tactics in the aftermath of the first trial.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN CONYERS - "I am deeply troubled by reports of FBI agents contacting former jurors who failed to convict Dr. Wecht. Whether reckless or intended, it is simply common sense that such contacts can have a chilling effect on future juries in this and other cases. When added to the troubling conduct of this prosecution, there is the appearance of a win-at-all-costs mentality."

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE DOYLE "I am very reluctant to intervene in a judicial proceeding - and like most people have watched quietly as the government's case against Cyril Wecht was made - but after seeing news reports from jurors, I have serious concerns about the appropriateness of a retrial.

Specifically, I have concerns about the government's decision to seek a retrial before even interviewing the Wecht trial jurors. Had they done so, they would have learned, as reported by the jury foreman, that a majority of the jurors were voting not guilty on the charges and that many had come to the conclusion that the case was politically motivated.

It also concerns me greatly that the FBI contacted jurors at their homes to request interviews about why they deadlocked. That would be intimidating to just about anyone.

If what is being reported is true, it is my intention to contact the Attorney General's office to ask him to review this case to determine whether justice would be served and taxpayers' money well spent by seeking a retrial."

Public outcry followed the government's decision to continue prosecuting Dr. Wecht after the mistrial. CNN called for the case to be dismissed, as did repeated op-eds in both local papers, The Pittsburgh Post Gazette and the Pittsburgh Tribune Review. In response to the negative press coverage, Assistant US Attorney Stalling filed a government response to the defense team's request to delay the start of the second trial and stated that the government may seek an out-of-town jury for the second trial.

On April 12, 2008, 33 prominent leaders in the Pittsburgh community sent a letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey and US Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan requesting that the prosecution dismiss the indictment against Dr. Wecht. Shortly after the press release of this letter, Senator Arlen Spector also publicly recommended against a retrial for Dr. Wecht. The letter's signers include prominent members of both the Allegheny Republican and Democratic Parties, 9 members of the Allegheny County Council, the former Allegheny County Executive who oversaw Dr. Wecht as county coroner during the indictment period; one of the former U.S. Attorneys for the Western District of Pennsylvania (the position that US Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan now holds); current and former members of the United States Congress, and many prominent lawyers and other members of the Allegheny County community. The complete list is as follows:

Edward Abes, Treasurer of the Allegheny County Democratic Party;James Burns, Chair of the Allegheny County Democratic Party;Nicolas Cafardi, Dean Emeritus and Professor of Duquesne University School of Law;John Cleary and member of Allegheny County Council;Ronald Davenport Sr., Chairman of Sheridan Broadcasting Corporation;John P. Defazio, member of Allegheny County Council;James R. Ellenbogen, member of Allegheny County Council;Patrick Fagan, Executive Secretary of Allegheny County Labor Council;Michael J. Finnerty, member of Allegheny County Council;Richard Fitzgerald, Chairman of Allegheny County Council;Dan B. Frankel, Pennsylvania State Representative for the 23rd District;Nicholas W. Futules, member of Allegheny County Council;Amanda Green, member of Allegheny County Council;William Greem, Senior Partner of William J. Green & Associates;Kenneth C. Greiner, Business Manager of Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local Union 12;Donald J. Guter, Dean of Duquesne University School of Law;Melissa Hart, Former Member of the United States Congress;Heather Heidelbaugh, Esquire;Elsie Hillman, Former Chair of Republican Party of Allegheny County;Billy Jackson, Filmmaker;Jerry Johnson, Former U.S. Attorney of the Western District of Pennsylvania from 1981 to 1989;Louis Kendrick, Former Pittsburgh City Councilman;Bob Macey, member of the Allegheny County Council;John McIntire, WQED-TV commentator;Tom Murphy, Mayor of the City of Pittsburgh from 1994 to 2005;Ralph R. Reiland, Associate Professor of Economics for Robert Morris University;William Russell Robinson, member of Allegheny County Council;Jim Roddey, Chair of Republican Party of Allegheny County and Former Allegheny County Executive;Evans Rose, Esquire;June Schulberg, Esquire;Celeste Taylor, Co-Chair of Black Political Empowerment Program;James Treher, Retired FBI Special Agent; andSala Udin, Former Member of Pittsburgh City Council

After the prosecution released a letter from one of the jurors stating that she personally wanted to convict Dr. Wecht and that the rest of the jury was equally split (5 for/5 against) conviction on a handful of the nearly four dozen felony counts, five members of the jury held a press conference to discuss the jury deliberations on April 28, 2008. The jurors stated the final split was 8-to-3 in favor of acquittal on 27 counts charging Dr. Wecht with using a county fax machine and the U.S. mail in a scheme to defraud county taxpayers. The jurors confirmed the statements of the juror's letter disclosed by the prosecution that they were split on 14 other allegations that Dr. Wecht charged private clients inflated or bogus travel expenses and that he misappropriated more than $5,000 a year of county resources for personal use. Overall, the five jurors stated they believed that Dr. Wecht made mistakes but that they, the jurors, were not convinced Dr. Wecht meant to cheat taxpayers...a fundamental element without which no jury could find him guilty. One juror stated during the press conference, "We just could not find any intent to defraud in any shape or form. We truly did try. We went through count by count by count. ... It's just time to let everything go." These viewpoint seems to demonstrate that the jurors agreed with the defense argument that the actions at issue in the case were civil matters of improper bookkeeping that did not contain the necessary criminal intent or malice needed for the criminal charges. Even with these statements, the prosecution continued steadfast with their decision to retry Dr. Wecht on the 41 criminal charges.

When the five jurors were questioned on whether they thought politics drove the prosecution, an argument defense lawyers were prohibited from making during the trial, they responded that they did view it as part of the motive behind the prosecution. One juror stated to the press, "I don't know if they were political or not, but the motivation was definitely less than pure." The jurors then questioned what seemed to them to be a one-sided investigation, an excessive amount of court documents that seemed more about "quantity than quality," and prosecution witnesses - including a nun - who were sympathetic to the defense. The nun, Sister Grace Ann Geibel, the former president of Carlow University, adamantly denied the government's claim that Dr. Wecht traded corpses from the county morgue to Carlow in exchange for free lab space to work on private cases.

The second trial was expected to start in May 27, 2008; however on May 8, a three panel judge body of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals composed of Judges D. Brooks Smith, D. Michael Fisher and Franklin S. Van Antwerpen issued an indefinite stay in the trial proceedings. The stay was to provide the Third Circuit Court of Appeals time to review an appeal on the motion for dismissal by the defense that was denied by the district judge. The motion argued that Wecht can not be retried due to double jeopardy as a result of the judge not following federal procedures. The procedures violated were that the judge failed to poll jurors individually to ensure they were, in fact, deadlocked, failed to ask the attorneys if they consented to a mistrial, failed to show the attorneys the final note from the jurors that said they were "essentially" deadlocked, and failed to question the jury foreman. Wecht's attorneys also argued in their motion that the judge acted inappropriately by asking the prosecution...while the first jury was still present...if it would retry Dr. Wecht.

As a result of Thornburgh's testimony to the House Judiciary Committee, and the public speculation as to the merits of the case, the a congressional committee chaired by John Conyers has opened an investigation to review the Wecht case, in addition to the review of Governor Don Siegelman's trial.On May 5, 2008, the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) revealed that it initiated an investigation into the Wecht prosecution due to claims that the case was a "selective prosecution". On June 26, 2008, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law issued a subpoena for all documents related to the case of Dr. Cyril Wecht.

 The Subcommittee issued the subpoena in conjunction with a request for similar documents in the case of Governor Siegelman under the heading "Selective Prosecution".

On September 6, 2008, a federal appeals court took the rare step of removing District Judge Arthur J. Schwab from the case for "a reduced level of rancor." On September 18, Wecht's defense team announced a plan to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to consider all dismissing charges against Dr. Wecht to avert a second trial. The government sought to retry Wecht on 14 charges.

On May 14, 2009, the new trial judge dismissed most of the evidence against Wecht because it was seized under illegal and improperly executed search warrant. On June 2, 2009, U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan announced that her office would be filing a motion to dismiss all charges against Dr. Wecht, effectively ending the government's prolonged battle with the ex-coroner and clearing Dr. Wecht of all charges.