Convicted Allegheny County Councilman McCullough back in court |

Convicted Allegheny County Councilman McCullough back in court

Megan Guza

The years-long saga of embattled, former Allegheny Councilman Charles McCullough continued Wednesday during a hearing in front of Common Pleas Judge David Cashman.

The hearing was on McCullough’s motion to have then-Judge Lester Nauhaus removed from his case because of alleged conversations between the judge and others.

McCullough was convicted in 2015 of five counts of theft and five counts of misapplication of entrusted funds – charges that were filed six years earlier and stemmed from allegations McCullough stole money from the estate of an elderly client.

McCullough was charged later in 2015 with perjury because when he waived his right to a jury trial, he stated he was not threatened or coerced to do so – something he said after the fact was untrue.

Those proceedings have been on hold while McCullough appeals the theft convictions. Deputy District Attorney Michael Streily, before the hearing began, indicated his desire to dismiss the perjury charges if it meant McCullough would take the stand.

Streily, before the morning was up, said he would no longer be willing to do so.

McCullough appealed his conviction to the Superior Court, and the issue was kicked back to the Court of Common Pleas in December when a Superior Court panel ordered the lower court to re-hear the recusal motion and, this time, allow Nauhaus and Jon Pushinsky, McCullough’s former attorney, to testify.

Indeed, Nauhaus and Pushinsky appeared in court, having been subpoenaed by McCullough’s current attorney, Adam Cogan.

McCullough has alleged that one-sided conversations took place between Pushinsky and Nauhaus. McCullough has argued that he waived his right to a jury trial because he feared repercussions from Nauhaus if he chose to have a jury trial instead of a bench trial.

Pushinsky testified that while Nauhaus did seem upset during the phone call and did yell at him, he was not intimidated and thought the judge was “blowing off steam.”

McCullough also alleged that Nauhaus’ conversation with a mutual friend of both his and Pushinsky’s — in which he said McCullough’s attorneys should consider a non-jury trial – amounted to a directive and helped intimidate McCullough into waiving his right to a jury trial.

A third allegation involved Nauhaus discussing his pending verdict decision with his secretary while the trial was still ongoing.

Nauhaus called that “absolute nonsense.”

In the Superior Court’s decision remanding the case back to Common Pleas, the panel of judges wrote that the last allegation “is troubling because it suggests that Judge Nauhaus relied upon influences outside of the record to form an opinion regarding McCullough’s guilt prior to the close of evidence.”

Cashman will not issue a ruling until next week.

Megan Guza is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Megan at 412-380-8519, [email protected] or via Twitter .

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.