Archive

Trib appealing judge’s refusal to release juror names in Westmoreland sheriff’s mistrial | TribLIVE.com
Westmoreland

Trib appealing judge’s refusal to release juror names in Westmoreland sheriff’s mistrial

Renatta Signorini
584187JonathanHeld120818
Rich Cholodofsky
Westmoreland County Sheriff Jonathan Held (left) and his attorney, Ryan Tutera, address the media following his mistrial.

The names of jurors who deliberated in the trial for Westmoreland County Sheriff Jonathan Held will remain shielded from the public, a judge ruled Friday.

Senior Common Pleas Judge Timothy Creany ordered that the names be released when Held’s criminal case is resolved. A retrial date has been set for April.

“The defendant’s right to a fair trial is an overriding interest and we should preserve that higher value of a fair trial,” Creany said.

The Tribune-Review plans to appeal the decision.

“The Pennsylvania Supreme Court was clear in its ruling in Commonwealth v. Long, that the press and the public have a right of access to the names of jurors,” said Joe Lawrence, Trib Total Media general counsel. “This is an important component to access to criminal proceedings and particularly important when a public official is involved.”

The Trib has sought the jury list, typically considered a public record, since the trial ended Dec. 7 in a mistrial when jurors said they were unable to reach a unanimous verdict. Lawrence argued in court Friday that the public has a right to the list of juror names based on legal precedent.

Held, 44, of Hempfield, is awaiting retrial on two charges that he directed on-duty uniformed deputies and office staffers to secure donations for campaign fundraisers in 2015 and 2016. They used county equipment such as computers and cars for the campaign activities, prosecutors said.

Seven men and five women deliberated earlier this month for nearly six hours, when they returned to the courtroom saying they had reached a verdict.

Creany announced that Held had been convicted of a felony charge of conflict of interest and a misdemeanor count of theft when reading from a verdict slip signed by all 12 jurors. When each member of the panel was polled individually, Juror No. 6 said he could not affirm the conviction. The remaining jurors were not polled.

The panel was ordered to continue deliberating but, about 30 minutes later, it reported a verdict could not be reached and a mistrial was declared.

Neither the defense nor the prosecution objected to the release of the names Friday, rather, telling Creany it’s clear the law permits the release of the names. The state Supreme Court in 2007 ruled that juror lists are considered public record. The case was brought by the Tribune-Review after a Westmoreland County judge refused to release the names of jurors who convicted a Ligonier podiatrist of killing his wife in 1998.

Creany shared concerns about the ability to pick a new jury and for Held to receive a fair retrial in April.

“The chilling effect” that releasing the names might have on a new pool of jurors “will impact the defendant’s right to a fair trial,” he said.

“I know that doesn’t satisfy you,” Creany told Lawrence after issuing his order. “You will have the names, but not while we’re still litigating this matter.”

Renatta Signorini is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Renatta at 724-837-5374, [email protected] or via Twitter @byrenatta.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com 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.