ShareThis Page
Pennsylvania

Veon case jury deliberates all day with no verdict

| Tuesday, March 16, 2010

HARRISBURG — Jurors in the public corruption trial of a former top Pennsylvania House Democrat and three of his former aides deliberated all day yesterday without reaching a verdict.

The eight-woman, four-man panel spent about nine hours behind closed doors before quitting for the day just after 5 p.m. Before leaving, they thanked the judge for moving them into a more spacious room. Monday's session followed about two hours of deliberations on Friday, the first day the panel was given the case after nearly six weeks of testimony.

Earlier Monday, Dauphin County Judge Richard Lewis resolved a dispute between defense attorneys and prosecutors over the types of exhibits that jurors were allowed to see. Eventually, nine large banker's boxes of exhibits were hauled into the deliberations room.

Lewis allowed the jury to get e-mails and other documents that had been shown or read to them during the trial or those that were directly described by a witness, as well as a second category of records deemed relevant to the charges in the case. He did not permit documents that prosecutors characterized as having been more broadly described.

In response to a note from the jurors, Lewis reread to them many of the jury instructions he had issued on Friday, including the elements of the various charges. The note also said jurors had questions about focusing on the four defendants as opposed to witnesses and others who received immunity, and sought guidance on the role of the jury foreman.

Former House Democratic whip Mike Veon of Beaver County and co-defendants Steve Keefer, Annamarie Perretta-Rosepink and Brett Cott are accused of theft, conspiracy and conflict of interest in what prosecutors have described as a wide-ranging scheme to siphon off taxpayer resources to wage political campaigns and underwrite other illegal activities.

Defense attorneys have argued that the evidence against their clients is weak and that some of the alleged infractions are so minimal as to not be criminal.

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.

click me