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.