Share This Page

Orie defense starts; will she take stand?

Sen. Jane Orie's lawyer began her defense against corruption charges with testimony from seven witnesses, but would not say whether the former Republican whip from McCandless will take the stand when the trial resumes Monday.

Like any criminal defendant, Orie has a constitutional right not to incriminate herself, noted John Burkoff, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh. But because she's a politician, her constituents might unfairly suspect she is guilty if she doesn't defend herself, Burkoff said.

"Ninety-five percent of the problem is you open yourself up to cross-examination," he said. "The other 5 percent is that you might act in a way that makes the jury nervous about you or question your credibility."

Orie, 49, faces 10 charges. Her sister Janine Orie, 56, an aide to their sister, state Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin, faces two charges. Both are accused of directing political work on the taxpayers' dime.

Defense attorney William Costopoulos started the defense Friday with a certified public accountant who blasted prosecutors' calculations that taxpayers lost out on $261,684 to $552,395 worth of work from Orie staffers while they performed campaign work on state time.

The prosecution's calculations "virtually failed every accounting standard in existence today," Downtown accountant Kenneth McCrory said.

Assistant District Attorney Lawrence Claus earlier concluded the government's case with Detective Kevin Flanigan, an accountant from the District Attorney's Office.

Several staffers testified during 11 days of trial about campaign work they said they did. Costopoulos' witnesses included three current or former staffers who said they never saw or did campaign work on state time.

Flanigan based his numbers on the percentage of time each Orie staffer estimated he did campaign work. He multiplied that by the staffers' salaries.

"He made the incorrect assumption that each employee's day was 7 12 hours long. ... Most of the employees testified they worked longer than that," McCrory said. "In this case, the numbers (from the staffers) are vague and from distant memories. They are not only unreliable but they're not objective measurements at all."

Costopoulos called to the stand Stephen MacNett, retired chief counsel to Senate Republicans, who testified that prior to 2010, "under Senate rules there was nothing that prohibited political work in the office," as long as it was done on comp time.

Costopoulos hasn't said whether Jane Orie, a former county prosecutor, will testify.

Troubled politicians often yearn to testify in court, even if their lawyers advise them it could be damaging, said Patrick Thomassey, a defense attorney who has represented public officials.

"The biggest thing is assessing the strength of the commonwealth's case," he said. "If it's not that strong, then you can only hurt yourself by putting your client on the stand. They're so used to public speaking; they want to do something when their name has been besmirched," Thomassey said.

Former House Democratic Whip Mike Veon did not testify during his 2010 public corruption trial. Veon was convicted and is serving six to 14 years at Laurel Highlands State Correctional Institution.

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.