Allegheny County judge candidate fixes error in campaign letter
A candidate for Allegheny County Common Pleas judge said a letter from her campaign seeking the endorsement of local Democrats contained incorrect information.
The letter dated Jan. 13 from Jennifer Satler, 37, of Washington's Landing boasted about her 10 years in the Allegheny County Public Defender's Office.
“In those 10 years, I handled thousands of cases giving me the skills necessary to be a good judge,” the letter said.
Satler worked in the office, which represents indigent criminal defendants, from 2001 to 2007.
“My campaign person was putting that out, and it was misprinted,” Satler said Monday. “I want the accurate information to be out there.”
She said corrected letters went out immediately.
County Democratic Chairwoman Nancy Patton Mills of Moon said Satler had no reason to embellish the truth.
“That's a good long time at the public defender's office,” Mills said.
Satler, who also teaches law classes and oversees the undergraduate mock trial team at the University of Pittsburgh, is married to veteran Pittsburgh homicide Detective George Satler.
She received her bachelor's degree in psychology from Bryn Mawr College in 1997 and her law degree from the University of Pittsburgh in 2000.
Fifteen candidates are seeking four 10-year terms on the bench. Other candidates include Deputy District Attorney Mark V. Tranquilli, city Solicitor Daniel Regan, Common Pleas Judge Paul Cozza and P.J. Murray, a Downtown attorney.
Satler, Tranquilli, Cozza and Murray have been endorsed by both the Allegheny County Labor Council and the county Democratic Committee.
Adam Brandolph is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-391-0927 or email@example.com.
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.