Thornburgh 'disappointed' by decision in Wecht case
Former U.S. Attorney General Dick Thornburgh said he's disappointed with a federal judge's ruling that Dr. Cyril H. Wecht's defense team cannot argue that the government's public corruption case against the forensic pathologist and former Allegheny County coroner is politically motivated.
"That should be part of the consideration in this case, as I testified before the (U.S.) House Judiciary Committee at their request," Thornburgh, who represents Wecht, said today. "So we're disappointed. That's all I can say."
Thornburgh, also a former two-term Pennsylvania governor, appeared in October before the judiciary panel and accused U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan, a fellow Republican, of abusing federal law to target Wecht, a Democrat. Buchanan has denied the allegation.
On Monday, U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab refused to suppress evidence in the case and ruled Wecht's attorneys can't use the allegation of political motivation.
Asked if the ruling was a blow to Wecht's defense, Thornburgh said: "We think it robs the case of some of the context that's necessary to fully understand why these charges were brought, but the judge has made a decision. Obviously we'll have to abide by it."
Jury selection in Wecht's trial is scheduled to begin Jan. 28.
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.