ShareThis Page
Superior Court consolidates Melvin’s appeals |

Superior Court consolidates Melvin’s appeals

Adam Brandolph
| Friday, May 2, 2014 6:55 p.m

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has granted a motion to consolidate two pending appeals from former state Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin.

Melvin’s attorneys asked the court this week to consolidate the appeals of her conviction and the stay of her sentence by Common Pleas Judge Lester G. Nauhaus.

Both appeals will be heard on May 20 at the Lawrence County Government Center in New Castle.

Judge Paula Francisco Ott denied a request that she recuse herself from the case.

A jury in May found Melvin, 58, of Marshall guilty of six counts for using her seat on the Superior Court to run her campaign for the state’s highest court in 2003 and 2009. Nauhaus sentenced her in October to serve three years on house arrest followed by two years of probation and ordered her to apologize to every judge in the state and pay $128,000 in fines, restitution and court costs. Nauhaus stayed the sentence a month later so she wouldn’t receive credit for time served during the appeal.

Melvin is seeking a new trial based on 20 issues, including whether there was enough evidence to convict her, whether a judge approved search warrants that were too broadly defined and whether Nauhaus deprived her of a fair trial. She also claims that forcing her to write apologies is unconstitutional.

Categories: News
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.