Pa.'s high court lets Kane remove judge
HARRISBURG — Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane has succeeded in ousting a state judge who specialized in overseeing secret, statewide grand jury investigations, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported on Monday.
The state Supreme Court sided with Kane in May in her effort to remove Barry Feudale from the position, the Inquirer reported. The proceedings were kept under seal, and the Inquirer did not say how it learned about it.
However, the newspaper report said Kane made the move after discovering an email Feudale had sent to a former top state prosecutor criticizing Kane and her predecessor, Linda Kelly.
Kane also told the court about an incident involving a knife — something Feudale says was taken out of context when he stopped by her offices and showed a secretary a 10-inch Gurkha dagger he keeps in his office.
Asked about the allegations, Feudale called them “a sneak attack” that had twisted the facts.
The Inquirer report said that the dispute that resulted in Feudale's removal is part of a larger battle between the newly elected attorney general, a Democrat, and the entrenched state prosecutors who had worked in the office under Republicans, who had controlled it for decades up until January.
Feudale, 67, has overseen grand juries in some of the attorney general's office's biggest cases, including the recent corruption scandal in the Legislature and the Jerry Sandusky child sexual abuse case at Penn State.
Feudale sent the email to Frank Fina, a onetime top prosecutor who left for the Philadelphia district attorney's office after building many of the attorney general office's biggest cases. In it, he wrote: “The Last General aka ‘Private' Kelly, could not lead and was indecisive to the point that she was almost ineffective.”
Show commenting policy
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.