ShareThis Page

Lone & flocking legal eagles

| Saturday, April 19, 2014, 9:00 p.m.


In the turnpike corruption case, one deputy attorney general sits alone at the prosecution table across from nine defense attorneys.

Those defense lawyers in hearings to date often have separate arguments.

That contrasts sharply with the virtual army of prosecutors the Attorney General's Office sent to court in Bonusgate and Computergate trials in 2010 and 2011.

Particularly in the case against House Democrats — where former Democratic Whip Mike Veon of Beaver County was the highest-profile figure — more than a half-dozen lawyers and agents would frequent the courtroom. That was a full-blown trial with super high stakes for former Republican Attorney General Tom Corbett, who was running for governor. Corbett won both the governor's race and the trial. Veon remains in prison for overseeing a scheme to award legislative staffers with taxpayer-paid bonuses for campaign work.

In a pretrial hearing on the turnpike case last week, Senior Deputy Attorney General Laurel Brandstetter squared off against nine defense attorneys, the vast majority with serious experience in criminal law. There are six defendants remaining in the “pay to play” portion of the case involving allegations of bid-rigging and bribery.

During the Bonusgate trial, Veon's attorney, Dan Raynak, constantly complained about the large prosecutory team. It was paid for with tax money, the very thing at issue in the trial, Raynak said.

Attorney General Kathleen Kane, when stung by criticism about the scuttled sting case, cites a list of public corruption cases she has pursued that includes the turnpike. She's a Democrat. The defendants are Democrats. And to her credit, she pursued it upon taking office in 2013. She dismissed the legislative sting — an informant doling out cash to lawmakers — last year for an array of legal reasons she claims made it “unprosecutable.”

She's fulfilling a campaign promise to investigate why Corbett took almost three years to charge serial predator Jerry Sandusky. Her investigation of the investigation to date has taken about 14 months. The salary, benefits and expenses paid to a law school professor to compile the report cost $120,000 so far, reported last month.

Don't be surprised to see Kane, in her report, comparing hours and costs of Bonusgate versus the Sandusky case.

At trial, some argue having a “second chair” is essential, if for nothing else than organizing the case, handling matters such as lining up witnesses. “Can you do it yourself? It's very difficult,” said Bruce Antkowiak, a former federal prosecutor who teaches at St. Vincent College.

There's another school of thought that appearing by yourself, against a team on the other side, creates a strong impression on the jury.

It suggests you're the underdog, said William C. Costopoulos, a defense attorney. The second lawyer might do cross-examinations, handle expert witnesses or do the opening, Costopoulos said.

Is it essential? “Not at all,” he said.

On her own now, Brandstetter was the lead attorney in Veon's second trial where he was convicted for misusing tax money that went to a nonprofit. She was paired with prosecutor Frank Fina in that 2012 case.

Brad Bumsted is Trib Total Media's state Capitol reporter (717-787-1405 and

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.