U.S. Supreme Court again rejects former Pa. judge’s appeal | TribLIVE.com
Pennsylvania

U.S. Supreme Court again rejects former Pa. judge’s appeal

Associated Press
1779389_web1_AP_197496836006
AP
Former judge Mark Ciavarella (center) leaves the federal courthouse in Scranton on Feb. 12, 2009. The U.S. Supreme Court has once again declined to take up Ciavarella’s case.

WILKES-BARRE — The U.S. Supreme Court has once again declined to take up the case of a former northeastern Pennsylvania judge convicted in what prosecutors said were juveniles wrongly sent to a detention center.

The denial Monday by the nation’s highest court was the second for 69-year-old former Luzerne County judge Mark Ciavarella Jr.

Ciavarella was convicted in 2011 of accepting bribes in exchange for ordering kids to a for-profit detention center for a wide range of relatively minor infractions. Sentenced to 28 years, he has denied wrongdoing.

A federal appeals court threw out an honest services mail fraud charge but upheld the other charges and the verdict. In 2014, the Supreme Court denied Ciavarella’s first petition for review. Last year, a judge threw out racketeering and money laundering conspiracy convictions.

Categories: Pennsylvania
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.