Bob Mayo Blogs The Cyril Wecht HearingDefense, Prosecution Argue Motions In Federal CourtPOSTED: 11:10 am EST January 29,
2009 Channel 4 Action News reporter Bob Mayo is covering the motions hearing for Dr. Cyril Wecht at the federal courthouse in Erie, Pa. He will be posting blogs as often as possible from court. These are the raw notes that were sent on his mobile device. Wecht Motions Hearing - Jan. 29, 200910:55 AM The hearing on the planned retrial of former Allegheny County Coroner Dr. Cyril Wecht is under way in the courtroom of federal Judge Sean McLaughlin.The judge is hearing arguments on important motions from both the defense and the prosecution.Wecht's defense team is asking the judge to toss out many of the charges or suppress key prosecution evidence. The effect, if successful, would be to gut the government's case.The prosecution, in addition to opposing that defense motion, is also asking that the retrial of Wecht be move from Pittsburgh to Erie because of the extensive publicity surrounding the case.Currently defense attorney Jerry McDevitt is arguing points concerning the legal definitions of theft of property and of schemes under federal law. He's also questioning the prosecution's rationale of accumulating (aggregating) a range of services of lesser value to total an amount that qualifies to make this a federal case. The government charges that Wecht abused his former public office and Allegheny County resources to benefit his private consulting business and for personal gain.Doctor Wecht and his wife Sigrid Wecht are seated together in the Erie federal courtroom. McDevitt's colleague, attorney Mark Rush, is also at the defense table. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jim Wilson and Leo Dillon are the prosecution team for the retrial.(These are my raw notes of the ongoing hearing on the Wecht case.)Defense Attorney criticizes what he considers "the level of triviality in this case". Judge McLaughlin asks him to talk about the "quality of proof relative to the executive assistant's services charge". (That's a reference to Wecht's former coroner's office executive assistant Eileen Young, who also did private work for him.) The defense attorney argues that "there was no evidence she did get her Allegheny County work done" and that the prosecution didn't show any loss to the county at all. McDevitt notes that Young was paid separately by Wecht to do his private work. He argues "What's the loss? If she gets all of the Allegheny County work done? What is the loss to the county?" ----11:30 AM Back from brief recess. McDevitt, criticizing the government's theory of prosecution: "What is the operative theory? That he embezzled corpses? It's this amorphous blob."----McDevitt refers to testimony at the first trial, in which there was sensational testimony of a coroner's wagon being used to transport hot dogs for a political event. The defense attorney says later testimony indicated that Wecht himself didn't order such an action and wasn't aware of it.----11:45 Assistant US Attorney Leo Dillon addresses the judge, saying the defense is simply repackaging arguments made before and rejected by the previous judge at the first trial. He argues that, absent new information, none of the defense motions to suppress prosecution evidence should be granted.Judge McLaughlin notes that the appeals court ruling which assigned the case to him noted that he would "provide a fresh set of eyes".Judge: let's talk about wire and mail fraud.Dillon: "The defense makes much of the small dollar amounts involved..."no reasonable man would want to pay for work that did not occur". He explains that Wecht's alleged victims among his private clients were billed, for example, for limousine rides that never occurred. The prosecution documented during the first trial that some of Wecht's clients were billed for Wecht's transportation to the airport on occasions when he was actually driven in a county car.Judge McLaughlin asks about a hypothetical case in which an overbilling was, for example, two dollars:"Does that a federal case make". Dillon argues that the amount is immaterial.The judge asks how can the defendant be responsible for the ongoing practice (the preparation of the private work invoices by his staff.)Dillon: while the employees didn't direct the employees to prepare the specific invoices, they all knew that he wasn't using the travel agencies and limousine services mentioned in that paperwork.Dillon: there was more than sufficient evidence that Wecht always used an Allegheny County car.---The judge asks about other alleged illegal use of property or services by Wecht. He wants to know what evidence there was that the value exceeded the $5,000 minimum necessary to be covered by the federal law in question. Dillon acknowledges it's hard to assign a specific value to deputy coroners' time, but he says the evidence shows that they were used for private purposes on a fairly regular basis. He says it was not sporadic.In regard to histology work, Dillon argues that virtually all of former histologist George Hollis' time was stolen, because he regularly performed private work.Judge: what's the quality and the nature of the proof -- without resorting to speculation -- that the value of private work by Wecht's executive assistants Mary Beth Blettner (sp?) and Eileen Young exceeded $5,000 per year?Dillon: claims they spent virtually all of their time doing private work and did virtually no county work. He says the $5,000 threshold was met.Judge: asks what evidence there was that Wecht knew that former county employee George Hollis was using the coroner's office lab for private work. Dillon argues that histology work is time consuming and requires special equipment and that the coroner's office is where Hollis spent his time and could be found.Refresh this page soon for more notes from court.
©2009 by ThePittsburghChannel. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |










