Former Sen. Orie’s attorney lists errors judge made in trial, sentencing |

Former Sen. Orie’s attorney lists errors judge made in trial, sentencing

The lawyer representing former state Sen. Jane Orie said an Allegheny County judge made a dozen errors in the Marshall Republican’s public corruption and forgery trial and sentencing.

Attorney William Costopoulos filed a three-page document Monday in Superior Court supporting Orie’s appeal in which he detailed alleged errors by Common Pleas Judge Jeffrey A. Manning. The arguments included the judge not permitting the defense to include evidence about the “long-standing political feud” between the Republican Orie family and the Democrat family of District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr. Zappala has denied the prosecution was politically motivated.

Manning sentenced Orie, 51, of McCandless on June 4 to 2 12 to 10 years in prison after a jury found her guilty on 14 counts, including theft of services and conspiracy for using her legislative office for political gain. She is being housed in the state prison in Crawford County.

Orie’s sister, suspended state Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin, 56, of Marshall and a third sister, Janine Orie, 58, of McCandless, are awaiting trial on charges they used Melvin’s former Superior Court staffers to run Melvin’s 2003 and 2009 campaigns for a Supreme Court seat.

Adam Brandolph is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-391-0927 or [email protected].

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.