Former New Castle man claims Beaver County prosecutor, state trooper violated civil rights
A Beaver County prosecutor and a state trooper continued prosecuting a former New Castle man on rape and kidnapping charges for almost two months after a woman told them she fabricated the story, the man claims in a federal lawsuit filed on Friday.
Anthony D. Micaletti, 41, of Phoenix, Ariz., claims that Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Popovich and Trooper Rocco S. Demaillo knew during a Dec. 2, 2011, preliminary hearing that Krista Jo Mesko said she made up the story about him abducting her at gunpoint and raping her at a nearby motel.
Despite her admission, Demaillo filed more charges against Micaletti and Popovich pursued those charges until Jan. 25, 2012, when Mesko testified under oath that she lied, the lawsuit says.
Mesko, 23, of Rochester subsequently pleaded guilty to false incrimination and was sentenced to two years of probation, according to Beaver County court records.
Micaletti, who was on probation for an unrelated offense, spent more than two months in jail in Beaver and Mercer counties because of the charges, the lawsuit says.
He accuses the prosecutor and trooper of false arrest and malicious prosecution. Bradley Olson, one of his attorneys, wasn't available for comment. Lawrence Keith, his other attorney, couldn't be reached.
A spokesman for Pennsylvania State Police declined to comment. A spokesman for the Beaver County District Attorney's Office couldn't be reached.
Brian Bowling is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-325-4301 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
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 â 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.