Washington County judge not required to explain order for search
Washington County President Judge Debbie O'Dell Seneca does not have to explain why she allowed investigators to search the chambers of another judge.
That search led to allegations that Paul Pozonsky, 58, who has since retired and lives in Alaska, stole cocaine evidence while presiding over criminal cases. He is charged with conflict of interest, theft, obstruction of justice, drug possession and misapplying entrusted government property.
Defense attorney Robert Del Greco Jr. asked Bedford County Senior Judge Daniel Lee Howsare earlier this month to order O'Dell to explain her decision in court.
Del Greco maintains that prosecutors lacked probable cause to search Pozonsky's office and went to O'Dell Seneca seeking an administrative order in what he has termed a “covert, deliberate measure” to circumvent Pozonsky's civil rights.
Caroline Liebenguth, a lawyer with the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts who represented O'Dell Seneca, argued that judges are protected from being compelled to testify about judicial matters to “protect the integrity of the judicial system.”
Howsare quashed the subpoena for O'Dell Seneca on Thursday and gave lawyers until the end of the month to present further evidence in the suppression hearing.
“We will certainly abide by the ruling and move on,” Del Greco said on Friday. “We still believe we have a meritorious suppression.”
Michael Hasch is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-320-7820 or at 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.