Court ponders discipline against Penn State case prosecutor Frank Fina |

Court ponders discipline against Penn State case prosecutor Frank Fina

Associated Press
Former state prosecutor Frank Fina departs after oral argument before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court at the Pennsylvania Capitol in Harrisburg Wednesday, Nov. 20, 2019. Fina faces possible law license suspension over his handling of a grand jury witness during the investigation into Penn State’s response to complaints about Jerry Sandusky.

HARRISBURG — A lawyer for the agency that investigates misconduct by Pennsylvania lawyers says a yearlong law license suspension is justified against one of the primary prosecutors in Jerry Sandusky’s 2012 child molestation trial.

Amelia Kittredge with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel argued Wednesday in favor of the punishment against former state prosecutor Frank Fina.

Kittredge told the state Supreme Court in Harrisburg that Fina violated a rule against prosecutors issuing subpoenas without a judge’s approval to get information from lawyers about their current or former clients.

At issue is Fina’s handling of a grand jury appearance by former Penn State general counsel Cynthia Baldwin regarding three top university officials.

Fina’s lawyer says his client shouldn’t face discipline, calling his actions “in the highest tradition of American prosecution.”

Categories: News | Pennsylvania | Top Stories
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.