State judges reject Sen. Jane Orie's last-minute appeal
The state Supreme Court today rejected a last-minute attempt by state Sen. Jane Orie to delay her trial on Corruption charges.
The state's high court declined to hear an appeal from Orie, a McCandless Republican and former majority whip, over her claims that the state's conflict of interest law is unconstitutionally vague. Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Jeffrey A. Manning ruled last month that the law was clear.
The ruling this afternoon follows a similar decision from the state Superior Court. The lower court also rejected the appeal and declined to delay the trial.
Jury selection in the criminal case against Orie is scheduled to begin tomorrow morning. District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr. charged Orie with theft of services and conflict of interest, accusing her of using state-paid legislative staff to do campaign work for her and her sister, state Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin.
Another sister, Janine Orie, an aide to Melvin, faces similar charges. Melvin has not been charged.
The Supreme Court rejected pleas from Orie's attorney and from the Senate Republican caucus.
The order states that Justice Thomas Saylor dissented and would have granted the appeal to determine whether the seizure of records from Orie's legislative office “violated general separation of powers principles and/ or privileges afford by the Speech and Debate clause” of the state Constitution.
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.