Pa. Court of Judicial Discipline to decide on Melvin’s pay |

Pa. Court of Judicial Discipline to decide on Melvin’s pay

The Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline will decide next month whether Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin will be paid while she defends herself against criminal corruption charges, officials said on Tuesday.

Court officials scheduled a hearing on June 12 to determine whether she will continue to receive her salary of $195,309 a year and to consider any objections to her suspension from the court. Melvin has 30 days to respond to a complaint the board filed on Friday based on the charges she faces.

William Arbuckle, Melvin’s lawyer, said she should continue to be paid.

Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr. charged Melvin, 56, of Marshall on Friday with nine criminal counts — including four felonies — based on allegations that she used her state-paid staff to do political work for her 2003 and 2009 election bids for the state’s high court.

Arbuckle repeated Melvin’s belief that the charges are politically motivated, an accusation Zappala denies.

Melvin’s preliminary hearing was postponed yesterday until June 8. Zappala’s office opposed Melvin’s request for a 60-day delay. Her hearing had been set for Friday.

Melvin has agreed to step away from her judicial duties. She has said she will not resign.

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.