ShareThis Page
The Wecht trial: Hounding jurors |

The Wecht trial: Hounding jurors

| Tuesday, April 15, 2008 12:00 a.m

Big Brother is making house calls to learn why jurors did not vote as the government had wanted in the federal public corruption trial of former Allegheny County coroner Cyril H. Wecht.

Two jurors said they were unnerved by FBI requests for home visits to explain why the jurors deadlocked on each of the 41 counts.

“Intimidating” is how the jury foreman describes it.

“Commonplace” is how Margaret Philbin, spokeswoman for U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan, sees it.

The investigating agency (the FBI) for the prosecuting attorneys usually participates in the post-verdict discussion with the jurors, she says. But the feds couldn’t even do that right: The jury was excused before government officials could speak with jurors.

The retrial is scheduled for May 27.

Government’s high-priced prosecution of Dr. Wecht, up to and including the questioning of the jurors, is nothing less than outrageous. And that very well could have a chilling effect on prospective jurors fearing that a “not guilty” verdict — in this or any other government case — could lead to a visit by inquisitive G-men.

The U.S. attorney must accept the fact that, after wasting untold amounts of the public’s money, her office could not get a single conviction — even though the defense called no witnesses.

So, failing to make a case, the prosecution sent in government’s bloodhounds. How pathetic.

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.