https://archive.triblive.com/region/heyl-kane-shouldve-used-evidence-or-brain/
Heyl: Kane should've used evidence — or brain
A prosecutor ignoring evidence is like a firefighter failing to unroll the hose.
Both are potentially career-killing abdications of professional responsibility.
No firefighter has been in the news recently for casually scrolling through sports scores while on the scene of a five-alarm lumberyard blaze. But Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane is making headlines for apparently turning a blind eye to damning evidence in a political corruption case.
Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams on Tuesday charged Democratic state Reps. Ron Waters and Vanessa Lowery Brown with bribery, conspiracy, conflict of interest and other illegalities. Claiming the case against the Philly lawmakers wasn't winnable, Kane last year declined to press charges against them.
How could Williams and Kane take such divergent prosecutorial paths? The answer is simple. Williams and the grand jury that issued the presentment against the legislators took the novel legal approach of relying on evidence; Kane relied on documents whose existence is in doubt.
In defending her decision, Kane cited compelling information in internal affidavits she has yet to produce. Williams essentially alleges that's because the documents are stored not in a filing cabinet, but deep in the attorney general's imagination.
What inarguably is real in this case is the tangible result of the sting operation that snared the lawmakers: photos of Waters and Brown allegedly accepting the bribes. Kane had photographic evidence of alleged corruption and did absolutely nothing with it.
How much sense does that make? To hammer home the obvious answer — none — let's draw reasonable conclusions as to what might have happened had Kane employed similar legal logic in several historic cases of indisputable wrongdoing:
• 1981: “There simply is no way we can prosecute John Hinckley for attempting to assassinate President Reagan. It would be extremely difficult to make a case against him with little more to present to a jury than his confiscated gun, his apprehension at the scene of the crime, and the bullets that struck the president in the chest and arm. Talk about a lost cause!”
• 1969: “We would be wasting time and taxpayer money if we charged Charles Manson with a crime. There's no evidence to suggest that someone with a reputation as a family man suddenly would act completely out of character and orchestrate the brutal murders of seven people.”
• 1945: “There's no denying that the Third Reich's top political and military leaders were mischief-makers. But after careful consideration, I'm not confident we can win convictions against any prospective Nazi defendants for waging a war of aggression, committing war crimes, or even engaging in crimes against humanity. The only evidence we have against them is World War II.
“That being said, I'm glad I came to Nuremberg to thoroughly review this matter. The sauerbraten here is incredible.”
Eric Heyl is a Trib Total Media staff writer. Reach him at 412-320-7857 or eheyl@tribweb.com.
Copyright ©2025— Trib Total Media, LLC (TribLIVE.com)