Former Hempfield veterinarian seeking ARD in records copying case |

Former Hempfield veterinarian seeking ARD in records copying case

Rich Cholodofsky

A Penn Township woman charged with stealing records from a Hempfield veterinarian clinic will ask to be enrolled in a prison diversion program next month.

In court documents filed Wednesday, the lawyer for Katherine Marraccini, 26, said she will seek admission to the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition program for first-time, nonviolent offenders.

The program, which usually includes a probation sentence, does not require a defendant to plead guilty.

Marraccini, a veterinarian at Pittsburgh East Animal Hospital in Hempfield, was charged in May with two felony counts: unlawful copying of records and computer trespass. Both charges carry maximum seven-year prison terms for convictions.

Police said she attempted to take patient records from the practice before she took another job at a clinic in Unity.

Following a preliminary hearing last month, defense attorney Adrian Roe said a confidentiality agreement Marraccini signed with the clinic when she was hired in 2017 did not apply to the records she sought to take from the business.

Roe on Wednesday withdrew a court motion in which Marraccini sought to invoke attorney-client privilege regarding potential evidence prosecutors sought to introduce against her in the criminal case.

Marraccini is scheduled to appear Aug. 28 before Westmoreland County Common Pleas Court Judge Megan Bilik-DeFazio, when the ARD could be approved.

Rich Cholodofsky is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Rich at 724-830-6293, [email protected] or via Twitter .

Categories: Local | Westmoreland
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.