Share This Page

Orie's appeal rejected

A state appeals court rejected state Sen. Jane Orie's claim that she cannot be retried on corruption charges, ruling on Wednesday that she was responsible for her case ending in a mistrial.

The three-judge Superior Court panel affirmed Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Jeffrey A. Manning's decision to declare a mistrial on March 3 after the discovery of doctored documents. The court's 22-page opinion stopped short of saying the forgeries came from Orie's hand, but said the documents were introduced as evidence critical to Orie's defense.

Orie "authenticated and submitted the doctored evidence at trial in a manner that was indeed critical to her defense," the opinion states. "The record supports the court's determination that (Orie) was responsible for the mistrial and she cannot place liability for the mistrial on either the court or (prosecutors)."

The ruling comes two days after District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr. charged the McCandless Republican with 16 new criminal counts, including forgery and perjury, related to the doctored documents. Her preliminary hearing on the new charges is scheduled for next week.

Zappala spokesman Mike Manko declined to comment yesterday. Orie's retrial is scheduled for October. Orie's brother, Jack Orie, has said prosecutors forged the documents.

The original case accuses Orie, 49, and her sister Janine Orie, 57, also of McCandless, of ordering the senator's staff to perform political work on state time. Janine Orie worked as an aide to state Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin, another sister. Melvin is not charged with wrongdoing.

Orie's attorney, William C. Costopoulos, has argued in court filings that a retrial would constitute double jeopardy. He did not return a call for comment yesterday, but earlier this week he called the new charges "suspicious" and a maneuver "brought to influence the appellate process."

University of Pittsburgh law professor David Harris said Orie could appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court but with every level of appeal, success becomes less achievable.

"Each time the original judgment is affirmed, the odds become less likely," Harris said.

Harris said even though Orie has not been convicted of forgery, the fact remains that those documents, introduced by her attorney, caused the mistrial.

"That's all that has to be determined -- the incident that prompted the mistrial happened at the hands of the defense," Harris said. "If the prosecution had set a trap, that's different. But there's no evidence that anyone other than the defense had anything to do with presenting (the documents) to the court."

Janine Orie's attorney, James DePasquale, filed two requests with Manning yesterday, including asking that her retrial be separate from her sister's.

"Janine Mary Orie did not testify, did not introduce any disputed exhibit, did not inquire about any of the disputed exhibits, and did not argue as to any of the disputed exhibits," DePasquale wrote.

He said the new charges are related to the senator and would create an unfair trial for Janine Orie. He also filed his opposition to prosecutors' attempt to use the new evidence in the retrial and said it was a "weak attempt" by prosecutors to keep the cases joined.

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.