Wecht trial ends, Risky strategy, IMHO Options

[Dawn Meredith]

Not the way I would have done it. I think he needed to testify. This could easily backfire. Jurors think people who don't take the stand are hiding something. Sure they SAY they can be fair and understand the defendant's right not to testify, but this is crap. THey all WANT to hear from the accused. So I think it was a risky call on their parts. His atty. had better do one heck of a closing.!
Dawn
____________
Wecht defense rests case, calls no witnesses
Closing arguments set for Monday in fraud trial against former coroner

Wednesday, March 12, 2008
By Jonathan D. Silver, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The biggest question of Dr. Cyril H. Wecht's federal fraud trial --
whether the verbose and volatile former Allegheny County coroner would
take the stand in his own defense -- was answered yesterday in
surprising and brief fashion.

After the prosecution announced it had rested its case following 44
witnesses, hundreds of exhibits and 22 days of testimony, lead defense
attorney Jerry McDevitt quietly stood up and said he was resting as
well.

No defense witnesses (there were 84 on the list). No more testimony.
And no climactic showdown between Dr. Wecht and the prosecutors who
have spent two years stitching together the case against him.

"I thought it was a very smart move," said Stanton Levenson, a
Pittsburgh criminal defense lawyer for 41 years.

"I think that puts them in the position to argue that the case the
government presented was very weak and required no response on the part
of the defense, that Dr. Wecht entered a plea of not guilty, and that's
sufficient."

Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor, echoed that
sentiment, but said there was a flip side.

"It also happens sometimes when you're afraid to put the defendant on
the stand," Mr. Tobias said. "I think it's a fairly bold move because
you're trusting that you made the right call and you've properly read
the jury and they're leaning in your favor."

Mr. McDevitt and his partner, Mark Rush, declined comment on their
announcement, as did Dr. Wecht.

"I look forward to closing," was all Mr. McDevitt would say as he left
the courtroom.

Those closing arguments are scheduled for Monday morning. U.S. District
Court Judge Arthur J. Schwab has given each side 90 minutes to make
their final pitch to jurors.

It is not unheard of in criminal cases for defendants not to take the
stand or even for defense attorneys to not call any witnesses, though
such moves might raise the eyebrows of some jurors.

More witnesses means more chances for prosecutors to cross-examine. And
whether to put the defendant on is a double-edged sword.

"The jury could say, 'If he really didn't do this, why didn't he get on
the witness stand and tell us that,'" said Mr. Levenson, who makes a
practice of trying to keep his clients from testifying.

But, he added, that's better than putting the defendant on and having
the jury say, "I didn't like him or I didn't believe him."

And with a defendant like Dr. Wecht -- intelligent but sarcastic,
genial to some but caustic to others -- some might think the smartest
move would be to keep him from going toe-to-toe with prosecutors.

Throughout the trial, Judge Schwab has instructed witnesses to give
"teaspoon" answers to "teaspoon" questions, meaning witnesses should
not go off on tangents but should stick narrowly to the question. Dr.
Wecht is known for giving gallon-sized answers.

Dr. Wecht is charged with 41 offenses involving wire fraud, mail fraud,
and theft from an organization receiving federal funds, namely
Allegheny County.

Prosecutors allege that while Dr. Wecht was the coroner, he used county
resources -- including his staff, fax machines, phone lines, vehicles
and even unclaimed bodies -- to benefit his private multimillion-dollar
autopsy and consultation business, Cyril H. Wecht and Pathology
Associates.

They also claim he schemed to defraud his private clients by inflating
airfares for which he was reimbursed, fabricated invoices for limousine
rides he never took and billed clients for mileage expenses while he
used a county car and never passed the money on to county coffers.

Prosecutors allege that Dr. Wecht carried out several of those schemes
by using fax transmissions or sending invoices through the U.S. mail.

Should the Wecht defense team have called witnesses to try to address
every alleged instance of a crime? Not necessarily.

"There's not much point in trying to rebut every individual instance if
you're arguing to the jury that what the prosecution has shown has not
demonstrated an overall pattern of abuse," said Duquesne University law
professor Bruce Ledewitz, a friend of Dr. Wecht's for 24 years.
"They're not going to convict on a federal charge because the guy took
home paper clips."

[Denis Pointing]

Not the way I would have done it. I think he needed to testify. This could easily backfire. Jurors think people who don't take the stand are hiding something. Sure they SAY they can be fair and understand the defendant's right not to testify, but this is crap. THey all WANT to hear from the accused. So I think it was a risky call on their parts. His atty. had better do one heck of a closing.!
Dawn
____________
Wecht defense rests case, calls no witnesses
Closing arguments set for Monday in fraud trial against former coroner

Wednesday, March 12, 2008
By Jonathan D. Silver, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The biggest question of Dr. Cyril H. Wecht's federal fraud trial --
whether the verbose and volatile former Allegheny County coroner would
take the stand in his own defense -- was answered yesterday in
surprising and brief fashion.

After the prosecution announced it had rested its case following 44
witnesses, hundreds of exhibits and 22 days of testimony, lead defense
attorney Jerry McDevitt quietly stood up and said he was resting as
well.

No defense witnesses (there were 84 on the list). No more testimony.
And no climactic showdown between Dr. Wecht and the prosecutors who
have spent two years stitching together the case against him.

"I thought it was a very smart move," said Stanton Levenson, a
Pittsburgh criminal defense lawyer for 41 years.

"I think that puts them in the position to argue that the case the
government presented was very weak and required no response on the part
of the defense, that Dr. Wecht entered a plea of not guilty, and that's
sufficient."

Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor, echoed that
sentiment, but said there was a flip side.

"It also happens sometimes when you're afraid to put the defendant on
the stand," Mr. Tobias said. "I think it's a fairly bold move because
you're trusting that you made the right call and you've properly read
the jury and they're leaning in your favor."

Mr. McDevitt and his partner, Mark Rush, declined comment on their
announcement, as did Dr. Wecht.

"I look forward to closing," was all Mr. McDevitt would say as he left
the courtroom.

Those closing arguments are scheduled for Monday morning. U.S. District
Court Judge Arthur J. Schwab has given each side 90 minutes to make
their final pitch to jurors.

It is not unheard of in criminal cases for defendants not to take the
stand or even for defense attorneys to not call any witnesses, though
such moves might raise the eyebrows of some jurors.

More witnesses means more chances for prosecutors to cross-examine. And
whether to put the defendant on is a double-edged sword.

"The jury could say, 'If he really didn't do this, why didn't he get on
the witness stand and tell us that,'" said Mr. Levenson, who makes a
practice of trying to keep his clients from testifying.

But, he added, that's better than putting the defendant on and having
the jury say, "I didn't like him or I didn't believe him."

And with a defendant like Dr. Wecht -- intelligent but sarcastic,
genial to some but caustic to others -- some might think the smartest
move would be to keep him from going toe-to-toe with prosecutors.

Throughout the trial, Judge Schwab has instructed witnesses to give
"teaspoon" answers to "teaspoon" questions, meaning witnesses should
not go off on tangents but should stick narrowly to the question. Dr.
Wecht is known for giving gallon-sized answers.

Dr. Wecht is charged with 41 offenses involving wire fraud, mail fraud,
and theft from an organization receiving federal funds, namely
Allegheny County.

Prosecutors allege that while Dr. Wecht was the coroner, he used county
resources -- including his staff, fax machines, phone lines, vehicles
and even unclaimed bodies -- to benefit his private multimillion-dollar
autopsy and consultation business, Cyril H. Wecht and Pathology
Associates.

They also claim he schemed to defraud his private clients by inflating
airfares for which he was reimbursed, fabricated invoices for limousine
rides he never took and billed clients for mileage expenses while he
used a county car and never passed the money on to county coffers.

Prosecutors allege that Dr. Wecht carried out several of those schemes
by using fax transmissions or sending invoices through the U.S. mail.

Should the Wecht defense team have called witnesses to try to address
every alleged instance of a crime? Not necessarily.

"There's not much point in trying to rebut every individual instance if
you're arguing to the jury that what the prosecution has shown has not
demonstrated an overall pattern of abuse," said Duquesne University law
professor Bruce Ledewitz, a friend of Dr. Wecht's for 24 years.
"They're not going to convict on a federal charge because the guy took
home paper clips."

Everyone here seems to want Wecht to be innocent because his "one of us". Fact is from what Ive seen of the evidence the guys as guilty as hell.

[David G. Healy]

Not the way I would have done it. I think he needed to testify. This could easily backfire. Jurors think people who don't take the stand are hiding something. Sure they SAY they can be fair and understand the defendant's right not to testify, but this is crap. THey all WANT to hear from the accused. So I think it was a risky call on their parts. His atty. had better do one heck of a closing.!
Dawn
____________
Wecht defense rests case, calls no witnesses
Closing arguments set for Monday in fraud trial against former coroner

Wednesday, March 12, 2008
By Jonathan D. Silver, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The biggest question of Dr. Cyril H. Wecht's federal fraud trial --
whether the verbose and volatile former Allegheny County coroner would
take the stand in his own defense -- was answered yesterday in
surprising and brief fashion.

After the prosecution announced it had rested its case following 44
witnesses, hundreds of exhibits and 22 days of testimony, lead defense
attorney Jerry McDevitt quietly stood up and said he was resting as
well.

No defense witnesses (there were 84 on the list). No more testimony.
And no climactic showdown between Dr. Wecht and the prosecutors who
have spent two years stitching together the case against him.

"I thought it was a very smart move," said Stanton Levenson, a
Pittsburgh criminal defense lawyer for 41 years.

"I think that puts them in the position to argue that the case the
government presented was very weak and required no response on the part
of the defense, that Dr. Wecht entered a plea of not guilty, and that's
sufficient."

Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor, echoed that
sentiment, but said there was a flip side.

"It also happens sometimes when you're afraid to put the defendant on
the stand," Mr. Tobias said. "I think it's a fairly bold move because
you're trusting that you made the right call and you've properly read
the jury and they're leaning in your favor."

Mr. McDevitt and his partner, Mark Rush, declined comment on their
announcement, as did Dr. Wecht.

"I look forward to closing," was all Mr. McDevitt would say as he left
the courtroom.

Those closing arguments are scheduled for Monday morning. U.S. District
Court Judge Arthur J. Schwab has given each side 90 minutes to make
their final pitch to jurors.

It is not unheard of in criminal cases for defendants not to take the
stand or even for defense attorneys to not call any witnesses, though
such moves might raise the eyebrows of some jurors.

More witnesses means more chances for prosecutors to cross-examine. And
whether to put the defendant on is a double-edged sword.

"The jury could say, 'If he really didn't do this, why didn't he get on
the witness stand and tell us that,'" said Mr. Levenson, who makes a
practice of trying to keep his clients from testifying.

But, he added, that's better than putting the defendant on and having
the jury say, "I didn't like him or I didn't believe him."

And with a defendant like Dr. Wecht -- intelligent but sarcastic,
genial to some but caustic to others -- some might think the smartest
move would be to keep him from going toe-to-toe with prosecutors.

Throughout the trial, Judge Schwab has instructed witnesses to give
"teaspoon" answers to "teaspoon" questions, meaning witnesses should
not go off on tangents but should stick narrowly to the question. Dr.
Wecht is known for giving gallon-sized answers.

Dr. Wecht is charged with 41 offenses involving wire fraud, mail fraud,
and theft from an organization receiving federal funds, namely
Allegheny County.

Prosecutors allege that while Dr. Wecht was the coroner, he used county
resources -- including his staff, fax machines, phone lines, vehicles
and even unclaimed bodies -- to benefit his private multimillion-dollar
autopsy and consultation business, Cyril H. Wecht and Pathology
Associates.

They also claim he schemed to defraud his private clients by inflating
airfares for which he was reimbursed, fabricated invoices for limousine
rides he never took and billed clients for mileage expenses while he
used a county car and never passed the money on to county coffers.

Prosecutors allege that Dr. Wecht carried out several of those schemes
by using fax transmissions or sending invoices through the U.S. mail.

Should the Wecht defense team have called witnesses to try to address
every alleged instance of a crime? Not necessarily.

"There's not much point in trying to rebut every individual instance if
you're arguing to the jury that what the prosecution has shown has not
demonstrated an overall pattern of abuse," said Duquesne University law
professor Bruce Ledewitz, a friend of Dr. Wecht's for 24 years.
"They're not going to convict on a federal charge because the guy took
home paper clips."

Everyone here seems to want Wecht to be innocent because his "one of us". Fact is from what Ive seen of the evidence the guys as guilty as hell.

A Deo et Rege

[Denis Pointing]

Not the way I would have done it. I think he needed to testify. This could easily backfire. Jurors think people who don't take the stand are hiding something. Sure they SAY they can be fair and understand the defendant's right not to testify, but this is crap. THey all WANT to hear from the accused. So I think it was a risky call on their parts. His atty. had better do one heck of a closing.!
Dawn
____________
Wecht defense rests case, calls no witnesses
Closing arguments set for Monday in fraud trial against former coroner

Wednesday, March 12, 2008
By Jonathan D. Silver, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The biggest question of Dr. Cyril H. Wecht's federal fraud trial --
whether the verbose and volatile former Allegheny County coroner would
take the stand in his own defense -- was answered yesterday in
surprising and brief fashion.

After the prosecution announced it had rested its case following 44
witnesses, hundreds of exhibits and 22 days of testimony, lead defense
attorney Jerry McDevitt quietly stood up and said he was resting as
well.

No defense witnesses (there were 84 on the list). No more testimony.
And no climactic showdown between Dr. Wecht and the prosecutors who
have spent two years stitching together the case against him.

"I thought it was a very smart move," said Stanton Levenson, a
Pittsburgh criminal defense lawyer for 41 years.

"I think that puts them in the position to argue that the case the
government presented was very weak and required no response on the part
of the defense, that Dr. Wecht entered a plea of not guilty, and that's
sufficient."

Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor, echoed that
sentiment, but said there was a flip side.

"It also happens sometimes when you're afraid to put the defendant on
the stand," Mr. Tobias said. "I think it's a fairly bold move because
you're trusting that you made the right call and you've properly read
the jury and they're leaning in your favor."

Mr. McDevitt and his partner, Mark Rush, declined comment on their
announcement, as did Dr. Wecht.

"I look forward to closing," was all Mr. McDevitt would say as he left
the courtroom.

Those closing arguments are scheduled for Monday morning. U.S. District
Court Judge Arthur J. Schwab has given each side 90 minutes to make
their final pitch to jurors.

It is not unheard of in criminal cases for defendants not to take the
stand or even for defense attorneys to not call any witnesses, though
such moves might raise the eyebrows of some jurors.

More witnesses means more chances for prosecutors to cross-examine. And
whether to put the defendant on is a double-edged sword.

"The jury could say, 'If he really didn't do this, why didn't he get on
the witness stand and tell us that,'" said Mr. Levenson, who makes a
practice of trying to keep his clients from testifying.

But, he added, that's better than putting the defendant on and having
the jury say, "I didn't like him or I didn't believe him."

And with a defendant like Dr. Wecht -- intelligent but sarcastic,
genial to some but caustic to others -- some might think the smartest
move would be to keep him from going toe-to-toe with prosecutors.

Throughout the trial, Judge Schwab has instructed witnesses to give
"teaspoon" answers to "teaspoon" questions, meaning witnesses should
not go off on tangents but should stick narrowly to the question. Dr.
Wecht is known for giving gallon-sized answers.

Dr. Wecht is charged with 41 offenses involving wire fraud, mail fraud,
and theft from an organization receiving federal funds, namely
Allegheny County.

Prosecutors allege that while Dr. Wecht was the coroner, he used county
resources -- including his staff, fax machines, phone lines, vehicles
and even unclaimed bodies -- to benefit his private multimillion-dollar
autopsy and consultation business, Cyril H. Wecht and Pathology
Associates.

They also claim he schemed to defraud his private clients by inflating
airfares for which he was reimbursed, fabricated invoices for limousine
rides he never took and billed clients for mileage expenses while he
used a county car and never passed the money on to county coffers.

Prosecutors allege that Dr. Wecht carried out several of those schemes
by using fax transmissions or sending invoices through the U.S. mail.

Should the Wecht defense team have called witnesses to try to address
every alleged instance of a crime? Not necessarily.

"There's not much point in trying to rebut every individual instance if
you're arguing to the jury that what the prosecution has shown has not
demonstrated an overall pattern of abuse," said Duquesne University law
professor Bruce Ledewitz, a friend of Dr. Wecht's for 24 years.
"They're not going to convict on a federal charge because the guy took
home paper clips."

Everyone here seems to want Wecht to be innocent because his "one of us". Fact is from what Ive seen of the evidence the guys as guilty as hell.

A Deo et Rege

Thank you Healy, but I am neither God nor King....just plain Denis, or Pointing to you.

This post has been edited by Denis Pointing: Mar 15 2008, 05:11 PM

[William Kelly]

Not the way I would have done it. I think he needed to testify. This could easily backfire. Jurors think people who don't take the stand are hiding something. Sure they SAY they can be fair and understand the defendant's right not to testify, but this is crap. THey all WANT to hear from the accused. So I think it was a risky call on their parts. His atty. had better do one heck of a closing.!
Dawn
____________
Wecht defense rests case, calls no witnesses
Closing arguments set for Monday in fraud trial against former coroner

Wednesday, March 12, 2008
By Jonathan D. Silver, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The biggest question of Dr. Cyril H. Wecht's federal fraud trial --
whether the verbose and volatile former Allegheny County coroner would
take the stand in his own defense -- was answered yesterday in
surprising and brief fashion.

After the prosecution announced it had rested its case following 44
witnesses, hundreds of exhibits and 22 days of testimony, lead defense
attorney Jerry McDevitt quietly stood up and said he was resting as
well.

No defense witnesses (there were 84 on the list). No more testimony.
And no climactic showdown between Dr. Wecht and the prosecutors who
have spent two years stitching together the case against him.

"I thought it was a very smart move," said Stanton Levenson, a
Pittsburgh criminal defense lawyer for 41 years.

"I think that puts them in the position to argue that the case the
government presented was very weak and required no response on the part
of the defense, that Dr. Wecht entered a plea of not guilty, and that's
sufficient."

Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor, echoed that
sentiment, but said there was a flip side.

"It also happens sometimes when you're afraid to put the defendant on
the stand," Mr. Tobias said. "I think it's a fairly bold move because
you're trusting that you made the right call and you've properly read
the jury and they're leaning in your favor."

Mr. McDevitt and his partner, Mark Rush, declined comment on their
announcement, as did Dr. Wecht.

"I look forward to closing," was all Mr. McDevitt would say as he left
the courtroom.

Those closing arguments are scheduled for Monday morning. U.S. District
Court Judge Arthur J. Schwab has given each side 90 minutes to make
their final pitch to jurors.

It is not unheard of in criminal cases for defendants not to take the
stand or even for defense attorneys to not call any witnesses, though
such moves might raise the eyebrows of some jurors.

More witnesses means more chances for prosecutors to cross-examine. And
whether to put the defendant on is a double-edged sword.

"The jury could say, 'If he really didn't do this, why didn't he get on
the witness stand and tell us that,'" said Mr. Levenson, who makes a
practice of trying to keep his clients from testifying.

But, he added, that's better than putting the defendant on and having
the jury say, "I didn't like him or I didn't believe him."

And with a defendant like Dr. Wecht -- intelligent but sarcastic,
genial to some but caustic to others -- some might think the smartest
move would be to keep him from going toe-to-toe with prosecutors.

Throughout the trial, Judge Schwab has instructed witnesses to give
"teaspoon" answers to "teaspoon" questions, meaning witnesses should
not go off on tangents but should stick narrowly to the question. Dr.
Wecht is known for giving gallon-sized answers.

Dr. Wecht is charged with 41 offenses involving wire fraud, mail fraud,
and theft from an organization receiving federal funds, namely
Allegheny County.

Prosecutors allege that while Dr. Wecht was the coroner, he used county
resources -- including his staff, fax machines, phone lines, vehicles
and even unclaimed bodies -- to benefit his private multimillion-dollar
autopsy and consultation business, Cyril H. Wecht and Pathology
Associates.

They also claim he schemed to defraud his private clients by inflating
airfares for which he was reimbursed, fabricated invoices for limousine
rides he never took and billed clients for mileage expenses while he
used a county car and never passed the money on to county coffers.

Prosecutors allege that Dr. Wecht carried out several of those schemes
by using fax transmissions or sending invoices through the U.S. mail.

Should the Wecht defense team have called witnesses to try to address
every alleged instance of a crime? Not necessarily.

"There's not much point in trying to rebut every individual instance if
you're arguing to the jury that what the prosecution has shown has not
demonstrated an overall pattern of abuse," said Duquesne University law
professor Bruce Ledewitz, a friend of Dr. Wecht's for 24 years.
"They're not going to convict on a federal charge because the guy took
home paper clips."

Everyone here seems to want Wecht to be innocent because his "one of us". Fact is from what Ive seen of the evidence the guys as guilty as hell.

Guilty as hell of what? Using a civil servant secrtary for private work?

The trial cost more than what he is accused of using.

Did Denis Pointing actually follow the trial?

Fact is, if that's the governent's case, they didn't have one.

But I guess that's for the jury to determine and not Denis Pointing or Bill Kelly.

Bill Kelly

This post has been edited by William Kelly: Mar 15 2008, 05:30 PM

[David G. Healy]

Not the way I would have done it. I think he needed to testify. This could easily backfire. Jurors think people who don't take the stand are hiding something. Sure they SAY they can be fair and understand the defendant's right not to testify, but this is crap. THey all WANT to hear from the accused. So I think it was a risky call on their parts. His atty. had better do one heck of a closing.!
Dawn
____________
Wecht defense rests case, calls no witnesses
Closing arguments set for Monday in fraud trial against former coroner

Wednesday, March 12, 2008
By Jonathan D. Silver, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The biggest question of Dr. Cyril H. Wecht's federal fraud trial --
whether the verbose and volatile former Allegheny County coroner would
take the stand in his own defense -- was answered yesterday in
surprising and brief fashion.

After the prosecution announced it had rested its case following 44
witnesses, hundreds of exhibits and 22 days of testimony, lead defense
attorney Jerry McDevitt quietly stood up and said he was resting as
well.

No defense witnesses (there were 84 on the list). No more testimony.
And no climactic showdown between Dr. Wecht and the prosecutors who
have spent two years stitching together the case against him.

"I thought it was a very smart move," said Stanton Levenson, a
Pittsburgh criminal defense lawyer for 41 years.

"I think that puts them in the position to argue that the case the
government presented was very weak and required no response on the part
of the defense, that Dr. Wecht entered a plea of not guilty, and that's
sufficient."

Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor, echoed that
sentiment, but said there was a flip side.

"It also happens sometimes when you're afraid to put the defendant on
the stand," Mr. Tobias said. "I think it's a fairly bold move because
you're trusting that you made the right call and you've properly read
the jury and they're leaning in your favor."

Mr. McDevitt and his partner, Mark Rush, declined comment on their
announcement, as did Dr. Wecht.

"I look forward to closing," was all Mr. McDevitt would say as he left
the courtroom.

Those closing arguments are scheduled for Monday morning. U.S. District
Court Judge Arthur J. Schwab has given each side 90 minutes to make
their final pitch to jurors.

It is not unheard of in criminal cases for defendants not to take the
stand or even for defense attorneys to not call any witnesses, though
such moves might raise the eyebrows of some jurors.

More witnesses means more chances for prosecutors to cross-examine. And
whether to put the defendant on is a double-edged sword.

"The jury could say, 'If he really didn't do this, why didn't he get on
the witness stand and tell us that,'" said Mr. Levenson, who makes a
practice of trying to keep his clients from testifying.

But, he added, that's better than putting the defendant on and having
the jury say, "I didn't like him or I didn't believe him."

And with a defendant like Dr. Wecht -- intelligent but sarcastic,
genial to some but caustic to others -- some might think the smartest
move would be to keep him from going toe-to-toe with prosecutors.

Throughout the trial, Judge Schwab has instructed witnesses to give
"teaspoon" answers to "teaspoon" questions, meaning witnesses should
not go off on tangents but should stick narrowly to the question. Dr.
Wecht is known for giving gallon-sized answers.

Dr. Wecht is charged with 41 offenses involving wire fraud, mail fraud,
and theft from an organization receiving federal funds, namely
Allegheny County.

Prosecutors allege that while Dr. Wecht was the coroner, he used county
resources -- including his staff, fax machines, phone lines, vehicles
and even unclaimed bodies -- to benefit his private multimillion-dollar
autopsy and consultation business, Cyril H. Wecht and Pathology
Associates.

They also claim he schemed to defraud his private clients by inflating
airfares for which he was reimbursed, fabricated invoices for limousine
rides he never took and billed clients for mileage expenses while he
used a county car and never passed the money on to county coffers.

Prosecutors allege that Dr. Wecht carried out several of those schemes
by using fax transmissions or sending invoices through the U.S. mail.

Should the Wecht defense team have called witnesses to try to address
every alleged instance of a crime? Not necessarily.

"There's not much point in trying to rebut every individual instance if
you're arguing to the jury that what the prosecution has shown has not
demonstrated an overall pattern of abuse," said Duquesne University law
professor Bruce Ledewitz, a friend of Dr. Wecht's for 24 years.
"They're not going to convict on a federal charge because the guy took
home paper clips."

Everyone here seems to want Wecht to be innocent because his "one of us". Fact is from what Ive seen of the evidence the guys as guilty as hell.

A Deo et Rege

Thank you Healy, but I am neither God nor King....just plain Denis, or Pointing to you.

finally... something correct!

[Denis Pointing]

Not the way I would have done it. I think he needed to testify. This could easily backfire. Jurors think people who don't take the stand are hiding something. Sure they SAY they can be fair and understand the defendant's right not to testify, but this is crap. THey all WANT to hear from the accused. So I think it was a risky call on their parts. His atty. had better do one heck of a closing.!
Dawn
____________
Wecht defense rests case, calls no witnesses
Closing arguments set for Monday in fraud trial against former coroner

Wednesday, March 12, 2008
By Jonathan D. Silver, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The biggest question of Dr. Cyril H. Wecht's federal fraud trial --
whether the verbose and volatile former Allegheny County coroner would
take the stand in his own defense -- was answered yesterday in
surprising and brief fashion.

After the prosecution announced it had rested its case following 44
witnesses, hundreds of exhibits and 22 days of testimony, lead defense
attorney Jerry McDevitt quietly stood up and said he was resting as
well.

No defense witnesses (there were 84 on the list). No more testimony.
And no climactic showdown between Dr. Wecht and the prosecutors who
have spent two years stitching together the case against him.

"I thought it was a very smart move," said Stanton Levenson, a
Pittsburgh criminal defense lawyer for 41 years.

"I think that puts them in the position to argue that the case the
government presented was very weak and required no response on the part
of the defense, that Dr. Wecht entered a plea of not guilty, and that's
sufficient."

Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor, echoed that
sentiment, but said there was a flip side.

"It also happens sometimes when you're afraid to put the defendant on
the stand," Mr. Tobias said. "I think it's a fairly bold move because
you're trusting that you made the right call and you've properly read
the jury and they're leaning in your favor."

Mr. McDevitt and his partner, Mark Rush, declined comment on their
announcement, as did Dr. Wecht.

"I look forward to closing," was all Mr. McDevitt would say as he left
the courtroom.

Those closing arguments are scheduled for Monday morning. U.S. District
Court Judge Arthur J. Schwab has given each side 90 minutes to make
their final pitch to jurors.

It is not unheard of in criminal cases for defendants not to take the
stand or even for defense attorneys to not call any witnesses, though
such moves might raise the eyebrows of some jurors.

More witnesses means more chances for prosecutors to cross-examine. And
whether to put the defendant on is a double-edged sword.

"The jury could say, 'If he really didn't do this, why didn't he get on
the witness stand and tell us that,'" said Mr. Levenson, who makes a
practice of trying to keep his clients from testifying.

But, he added, that's better than putting the defendant on and having
the jury say, "I didn't like him or I didn't believe him."

And with a defendant like Dr. Wecht -- intelligent but sarcastic,
genial to some but caustic to others -- some might think the smartest
move would be to keep him from going toe-to-toe with prosecutors.

Throughout the trial, Judge Schwab has instructed witnesses to give
"teaspoon" answers to "teaspoon" questions, meaning witnesses should
not go off on tangents but should stick narrowly to the question. Dr.
Wecht is known for giving gallon-sized answers.

Dr. Wecht is charged with 41 offenses involving wire fraud, mail fraud,
and theft from an organization receiving federal funds, namely
Allegheny County.

Prosecutors allege that while Dr. Wecht was the coroner, he used county
resources -- including his staff, fax machines, phone lines, vehicles
and even unclaimed bodies -- to benefit his private multimillion-dollar
autopsy and consultation business, Cyril H. Wecht and Pathology
Associates.

They also claim he schemed to defraud his private clients by inflating
airfares for which he was reimbursed, fabricated invoices for limousine
rides he never took and billed clients for mileage expenses while he
used a county car and never passed the money on to county coffers.

Prosecutors allege that Dr. Wecht carried out several of those schemes
by using fax transmissions or sending invoices through the U.S. mail.

Should the Wecht defense team have called witnesses to try to address
every alleged instance of a crime? Not necessarily.

"There's not much point in trying to rebut every individual instance if
you're arguing to the jury that what the prosecution has shown has not
demonstrated an overall pattern of abuse," said Duquesne University law
professor Bruce Ledewitz, a friend of Dr. Wecht's for 24 years.
"They're not going to convict on a federal charge because the guy took
home paper clips."

Everyone here seems to want Wecht to be innocent because his "one of us". Fact is from what Ive seen of the evidence the guys as guilty as hell.

A Deo et Rege

Thank you Healy, but I am neither God nor King....just plain Denis, or Pointing to you.

finally... something correct!

Sit down Healy, it'll be your turn soon to get something correct...maybe!! LOL

[Robert Howard]

I will not enter the conundrum regarding Cyril Wecht's presumed guilt or innocence, but I will state that there have been hundred's of cases in United States history as this one .......

Points to ponder; even if a guilty verdict was to be announced, there have been more than a couple of legal cases in the history of American legal jurisprudence, in which the motivation for indicting a person later to be proved innocent was nothing more than revenge and silencing an unwelcome voice..........


In the meantime........It would seem to be in the realm of fact that in the interim period before the trial commenced and today, that CNN and other major news outlets broadcast information regarding high profile criminal cases in which Cyril was interviewed and his knowledge of forensics was, as always carefully weighed by those same media outlets; that is not Standard Operating Procedure for a white-collar professional in which the scuttlebutt going around is that he is guilty of a crime.

One would have to be very naive to think his current legal problem has nothing to do with Dr Wecht's "controversial" position regarding his forensic's analysis of the JFK Assassination, and subsequently, that the government has no personal feeling towards the accused, and this latter aspect outside of the case, so to speak, may even extend beyond the Justice Department; the image of Cyril standing in a dark alley discussing the sale of body parts seems to be the picture that his detractors wish to associate with him.


The JFK Assassination and it's decades long trail of ruined lives of those who went against the grain was, and still is, the biggest single agenda driven topic in mainstream media, and that my friends is the big picture, if you disagree regarding the view expressed maybe you are right, but taking the step of not calling Wecht to the stand, may not be seen after the verdict to be as risky as it seems now.......

We may be reading in the future......
......If that was the case against Cyril Wecht, then "they" didn't have a case.
and that would be truly ironic.

[Peter Lemkin]

Not the way I would have done it. I think he needed to testify. This could easily backfire. Jurors think people who don't take the stand are hiding something. Sure they SAY they can be fair and understand the defendant's right not to testify, but this is crap. THey all WANT to hear from the accused. So I think it was a risky call on their parts. His atty. had better do one heck of a closing.!
Dawn
____________
Wecht defense rests case, calls no witnesses
Closing arguments set for Monday in fraud trial against former coroner

Wednesday, March 12, 2008
By Jonathan D. Silver, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The biggest question of Dr. Cyril H. Wecht's federal fraud trial --
whether the verbose and volatile former Allegheny County coroner would
take the stand in his own defense -- was answered yesterday in
surprising and brief fashion.

After the prosecution announced it had rested its case following 44
witnesses, hundreds of exhibits and 22 days of testimony, lead defense
attorney Jerry McDevitt quietly stood up and said he was resting as
well.

No defense witnesses (there were 84 on the list). No more testimony.
And no climactic showdown between Dr. Wecht and the prosecutors who
have spent two years stitching together the case against him.

"I thought it was a very smart move," said Stanton Levenson, a
Pittsburgh criminal defense lawyer for 41 years.

"I think that puts them in the position to argue that the case the
government presented was very weak and required no response on the part
of the defense, that Dr. Wecht entered a plea of not guilty, and that's
sufficient."

Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor, echoed that
sentiment, but said there was a flip side.

"It also happens sometimes when you're afraid to put the defendant on
the stand," Mr. Tobias said. "I think it's a fairly bold move because
you're trusting that you made the right call and you've properly read
the jury and they're leaning in your favor."

Mr. McDevitt and his partner, Mark Rush, declined comment on their
announcement, as did Dr. Wecht.

"I look forward to closing," was all Mr. McDevitt would say as he left
the courtroom.

Those closing arguments are scheduled for Monday morning. U.S. District
Court Judge Arthur J. Schwab has given each side 90 minutes to make
their final pitch to jurors.

It is not unheard of in criminal cases for defendants not to take the
stand or even for defense attorneys to not call any witnesses, though
such moves might raise the eyebrows of some jurors.

More witnesses means more chances for prosecutors to cross-examine. And
whether to put the defendant on is a double-edged sword.

"The jury could say, 'If he really didn't do this, why didn't he get on
the witness stand and tell us that,'" said Mr. Levenson, who makes a
practice of trying to keep his clients from testifying.

But, he added, that's better than putting the defendant on and having
the jury say, "I didn't like him or I didn't believe him."

And with a defendant like Dr. Wecht -- intelligent but sarcastic,
genial to some but caustic to others -- some might think the smartest
move would be to keep him from going toe-to-toe with prosecutors.

Throughout the trial, Judge Schwab has instructed witnesses to give
"teaspoon" answers to "teaspoon" questions, meaning witnesses should
not go off on tangents but should stick narrowly to the question. Dr.
Wecht is known for giving gallon-sized answers.

Dr. Wecht is charged with 41 offenses involving wire fraud, mail fraud,
and theft from an organization receiving federal funds, namely
Allegheny County.

Prosecutors allege that while Dr. Wecht was the coroner, he used county
resources -- including his staff, fax machines, phone lines, vehicles
and even unclaimed bodies -- to benefit his private multimillion-dollar
autopsy and consultation business, Cyril H. Wecht and Pathology
Associates.

They also claim he schemed to defraud his private clients by inflating
airfares for which he was reimbursed, fabricated invoices for limousine
rides he never took and billed clients for mileage expenses while he
used a county car and never passed the money on to county coffers.

Prosecutors allege that Dr. Wecht carried out several of those schemes
by using fax transmissions or sending invoices through the U.S. mail.

Should the Wecht defense team have called witnesses to try to address
every alleged instance of a crime? Not necessarily.

"There's not much point in trying to rebut every individual instance if
you're arguing to the jury that what the prosecution has shown has not
demonstrated an overall pattern of abuse," said Duquesne University law
professor Bruce Ledewitz, a friend of Dr. Wecht's for 24 years.
"They're not going to convict on a federal charge because the guy took
home paper clips."

Dawn, I agree. Risky and doesn't seem like a great idea....could they be doing some calculus for an appeal with a better [or less bad] judge? Strange...the legal team is very experienced...so they must be thinking something.....we keep our fingers crossed. To the Forum members that see Wecht as 'guily as hell' I can only say you are venal dolts....First the foibles are hardly crimes. Next, the persecution [not prosecution] was motivated by Cyril's stand on JFK. Period. Lastly, look at the crimes the Administration and most Corporate and Banking execs commit and don't face a court, let alone a day in a golf-club-prison.....and compare those murders and billions or trillions stolen to a [maybe] few hours of a secretary's time. Glad you're not on the Jury - his or mine. Those on the right in America have lost all proportion, perspective and fairness....not to mention heart and compassion.

This post has been edited by Peter Lemkin: Mar 16 2008, 08:04 AM

[Dawn Meredith]

Pointing, just one more person to ignore here. Ya, guilty as hell for using too many paperclips. Let's give him the needle.

Dawn

[Denis Pointing]

Pointing, just one more person to ignore here. Ya, guilty as hell for using too many paperclips. Let's give him the needle.

Dawn

I didn't expect that response from you Dawn. As someone I've always liked and respected, I'm really surprised you could react so harshly towards a fellow member merely for holding a differant opinion than yourself. IMO, anyone not looking at the case thru rose colored spectacles can see that there's a lot more going on than "using too many paperclips" but that's only my opinion and I may well be proved wrong. Whats more importaint, at least to me, is your attitude towards me for expressing it. Its a real eye opener Dawn. I dont mind admitting I'm genuenly disappointed. So be it, and so much for free speech, which you and other members are forever advocating here. Guess that only appliers if that free speech mirrors your own. Denis...or as you seem to address me now, Pointing.

[Dawn Meredith]

Pointing, just one more person to ignore here. Ya, guilty as hell for using too many paperclips. Let's give him the needle.

Dawn

I didn't expect that response from you Dawn. As someone I've always liked and respected, I'm really surprised you could react so harshly towards a fellow member merely for holding a differant opinion than yourself. IMO, anyone not looking at the case thru rose colored spectacles can see that there's a lot more going on than "using too many paperclips" but that's only my opinion and I may well be proved wrong. Whats more importaint, at least to me, is your attitude towards me for expressing it. Its a real eye opener Dawn. I dont mind admitting I'm genuenly disappointed. So be it, and so much for free speech, which you and other members are forever advocating here. Guess that only appliers if that free speech mirrors your own. Denis...or as you seem to address me now, Pointing.

From your comment about him being guilty it appeared as if you have been followong this trial? No? Yes? So, if you have and you say that he guilty, then I agree with Peter, I'd sure not want you on my jury. That's my view. But I am getting reports ON the trial from a fellow researcher In Lancaster (Jerry Policoff) so I see how absurd, vandictive and downright frightening this is. I did not mean to be harsh to you. Also it's hard to truly judge the evidence without being there. That said the articles I have read have all been bs. THis prosecution is politically motivated and they are trying to destroy the life of a great man. If you can't (won't ) see that then .....you're right to your opinion, just as I am right to mine. They are arguing over pennies here.
Dawn

[Denis Pointing]

Pointing, just one more person to ignore here. Ya, guilty as hell for using too many paperclips. Let's give him the needle.

Dawn

I didn't expect that response from you Dawn. As someone I've always liked and respected, I'm really surprised you could react so harshly towards a fellow member merely for holding a differant opinion than yourself. IMO, anyone not looking at the case thru rose colored spectacles can see that there's a lot more going on than "using too many paperclips" but that's only my opinion and I may well be proved wrong. Whats more importaint, at least to me, is your attitude towards me for expressing it. Its a real eye opener Dawn. I dont mind admitting I'm genuenly disappointed. So be it, and so much for free speech, which you and other members are forever advocating here. Guess that only appliers if that free speech mirrors your own. Denis...or as you seem to address me now, Pointing.

From your comment about him being guilty it appeared as if you have been followong this trial? No? Yes? So, if you have and you say that he guilty, then I agree with Peter, I'd sure not want you on my jury. That's my view. But I am getting reports ON the trial from a fellow researcher In Lancaster (Jerry Policoff) so I see how absurd, vandictive and downright frightening this is. I did not mean to be harsh to you. Also it's hard to truly judge the evidence without being there. That said the articles I have read have all been bs. THis prosecution is politically motivated and they are trying to destroy the life of a great man. If you can't (won't ) see that then .....you're right to your opinion, just as I am right to mine. They are arguing over pennies here.
Dawn

You may well be right in everything you say Dawn, you are definitely 100% correct in saying you have a right to state an opinion, as do I. What I found unnessarily hurtful, and out of character, was the remark: "Pointing, just one more person to ignore here". To suggest I should be ignored because my opinion differs from your own is unwarranted Dawn. And reminiscent of our mutual "friend" Bevilaqua. Denis.

[William Kelly]

Pointing, just one more person to ignore here. Ya, guilty as hell for using too many paperclips. Let's give him the needle.

Dawn

I didn't expect that response from you Dawn. As someone I've always liked and respected, I'm really surprised you could react so harshly towards a fellow member merely for holding a differant opinion than yourself. IMO, anyone not looking at the case thru rose colored spectacles can see that there's a lot more going on than "using too many paperclips" but that's only my opinion and I may well be proved wrong. Whats more importaint, at least to me, is your attitude towards me for expressing it. Its a real eye opener Dawn. I dont mind admitting I'm genuenly disappointed. So be it, and so much for free speech, which you and other members are forever advocating here. Guess that only appliers if that free speech mirrors your own. Denis...or as you seem to address me now, Pointing.

From your comment about him being guilty it appeared as if you have been followong this trial? No? Yes? So, if you have and you say that he guilty, then I agree with Peter, I'd sure not want you on my jury. That's my view. But I am getting reports ON the trial from a fellow researcher In Lancaster (Jerry Policoff) so I see how absurd, vandictive and downright frightening this is. I did not mean to be harsh to you. Also it's hard to truly judge the evidence without being there. That said the articles I have read have all been bs. THis prosecution is politically motivated and they are trying to destroy the life of a great man. If you can't (won't ) see that then .....you're right to your opinion, just as I am right to mine. They are arguing over pennies here.
Dawn

You may well be right in everything you say Dawn, you are definitely 100% correct in saying you have a right to state an opinion, as do I. What I found unnessarily hurtful, and out of character, was the remark: "Pointing, just one more person to ignore here". To suggest I should be ignored because my opinion differs from your own is unwarranted Dawn. And reminiscent of our mutual "friend" Bevilaqua. Denis.

Denis,

I didn't ignore you. I asked if you actually paid attention to the trial, and read the transcripts and daily reporter's blog at the Pittsburgh paper's web site?

If you did, then you're opinion carries more weight, as you learned what the jurors and judge learned and could form an opinion based on the evidence.

If you just read web postings about the trial, then your opinion is just an opinion.

We shall soon see which way justice will go.

Bill Kelly

[William Kelly]

Long Wecht trial heads to jury
Question comes down to honest mistakes or fraud

Sunday, March 16, 2008

By Jonathan D. Silver, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Whether jurors view Dr. Cyril H. Wecht as a brilliant crusader who made
honest mistakes while toiling for the greater good or a corrupt schemer
who shamelessly took advantage of his public office could come down to
a final blaze of lawyerly oratory tomorrow.

After enduring 22 days of testimony in the fraud trial of Allegheny
County's former coroner, the jury will have to sift through a mountain
of evidence to determine whether Dr. Wecht is guilty of breaking
federal law.

But before they're sent to contemplate a verdict, the jurors' final
impressions of Dr. Wecht will be framed by two hours of closing
arguments by each side -- the ultimate opportunity for attorneys to
spin the evidence their way.

"Given that's the last thing they hear, it couldn't be more important,"
said University

of Pittsburgh law professor David A. Harris. "It's like when you spill
a jigsaw puzzle out on a table. The closing gives the lawyers a chance
to bring it all together and to show the jury how it fits."

All the while, the man whose fate hangs in the balance, whose
remarkable and relentless career has spanned decades and continents,
can do the only thing he's done every day for the past seven weeks: Sit
back in a Downtown courtroom and listen.

During the trial, the 76-year-old Dr. Wecht has quietly watched
prosecutors parade former employees, private clients, his corporate
accountant and even his two trusted one-time secretaries before the
jury.

More than one witness hauled in to testify on behalf of the government,
including Sister Grace Ann Geibel, the former president of Carlow,
clearly supported Dr. Wecht. Some witnesses who testified to alleged
wrongdoing -- such as deputy coroners describing personal errands they
were told to run -- even conceded they liked the forensic pathologist
and learned from him.

In contrast to his public persona, which brims with opinions and an
English major's vocabulary, Dr. Wecht's demeanor in the courtroom has
been quiet and reserved. He occasionally chatted with spectators during
breaks or joked with reporters, but by and large, his defining
characteristic in court has been silence.

In this case, Cyril Wecht, M.D., J.D. an accomplished expert witness
paid to talk to juries, had to let others do the talking for him.
Tomorrow will be a day for talking like no other, presumably by lead
defense attorney Jerry McDevitt.

"It's often where a juror will have the 'a-ha moment,' " Drexel
University law professor Brian J. Foley said of the closing argument.

Both sides are expected to circle back to their opening statements in
hammering their points home to jurors one last time and packaging the
information in a coherent way to support their theory of the case.

"There's no better person than McDevitt," Pittsburgh defense attorney
Mark A. Sindler said. "He's a very accomplished trial lawyer. You have
to have a theme throughout the trial. The theme obviously comes to the
jury in the opening statement. You hopefully can carry that theme
throughout the case. If you're true to your promise ... now it has to
be brought full circle in your closing arguments."

While Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen S. Stallings told jurors that the
case against Dr. Wecht is "simple" and boils down to him using county
resources for private gain, Mr. McDevitt wrote the case off to "routine
billing errors" for "petty amounts" by a man so busy helping put
murderers in jail that he merely asked for a hand from his staff to
accomplish all his myriad tasks.

Mr. Stallings and his colleague, Assistant U.S. Attorney James R.
Wilson, employed a document-heavy strategy, displaying hundreds of
pages of invoices, calendar entries, telephone logs, policies and
correspondence.

A mountain of paper
Unlike trials involving violent crime, white-collar cases have a
different focus, noted Robert Ridge, a Pittsburgh defense lawyer and
former U.S. Justice Department trial attorney.

"The question in a street-crime case is always, who did it," Mr. Ridge
said. "In a white-collar case, rarely is there a question of who did it
because there's so much paper in the case. The question in a
white-collar case is, is this a crime?"

Another question is pertinent. Could the onslaught of documentary
evidence over the course of seven weeks harm the prosecution?

"The slower a case comes in there's always more confusion. The more
paper you put out, the more you create a fertile field for confusion,
and confusion usually works for the benefit of the defense. But who
knows?" said Butler attorney Alexander H. Lindsay Jr., a former federal
prosecutor. Juries, he added, are "totally unpredictable."

Dr. Wecht and his team made a tactical decision to not call any
witnesses, gambling that the strength of their cross-examinations of
the prosecution's 44 witnesses and a proclaimed weakness in the
government's case would be enough to sway jurors to a not-guilty
verdict.

For each of the allegations, the defense had an answer, leaving jurors
the task of wrestling with how to interpret the evidence.

It is clear, for instance, that Dr. Wecht knew his secretary was
billing private clients for limousine rides he never took. She
explained it away on the witness stand by saying he told her the $80 to
$90 charges covered incidentals.

Dr. Wecht definitely struck a deal with Carlow to provide cadavers for
a student autopsy program, and he did indeed receive free lab space.
But Sister Geibel, who created the program, said no discussion ever
took place about unclaimed bodies from the county morgue or no quid pro
quo was involved.

Dr. Wecht routinely approved billing private clients for airfare that
was more than he paid. But his secretaries said they routinely
pre-billed clients, never reconciled the bills with Dr. Wecht's credit
card statements and sometimes undercharged.

"The defense is going to try to put the government's effort on trial.
They're going to say that this guy is out there trying to do the public
good ... every day, and he's one of the great things about Pittsburgh.
What could they assemble against him except a bunch of little things?"
Mr. Harris said.

"And then they will try to pick each one apart, to atomize the case and
show it's nothing but a bunch of little, picky technicalities and
inconsequential errors that anybody could make, especially a very busy
person like Dr. Wecht."

Indeed, that's the theory Mr. McDevitt put forth in his opening
statement.

Humanizing the coroner
The defense team worked hard to tell jurors how brilliant Dr. Wecht is,
how important his talents are as an expert witness to help lock up
criminals, how he does volunteer work, how he took time to dictate
letters to students. Mr. McDevitt's partner, Mark Rush, even referred
to Dr. Wecht at times as "this brain."

Mr. McDevitt and Mr. Rush tried to humanize Dr. Wecht, joking with
witnesses about his sweet tooth and how anytime he was in a car with
someone, he would drive. On the first day of trial, Mr. McDevitt
described Dr. Wecht's "relentless work ethic" and claimed he is "the
best bargain Allegheny County ever had."

A key point that will be up to jurors to decide is perhaps the most
important: whether Dr. Wecht, whatever he did, meant to defraud anyone.
One side says yes, the other no.

"The defendant deceitfully defrauded people in order to put money in
his pocket at other people's expense," Mr. Stallings told jurors in his
opening statement.

"He is innocent of having criminal intent of any of the acts [Mr.
Stallings] just told you," Mr. McDevitt said.

U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab will tell the jury that if they
believe Dr. Wecht acted in good faith, it is a "complete defense," at
least on the counts of wire and mail fraud encompassing theft of honest
services.

What the attorneys say during their closing arguments will no doubt
influence deliberations about Dr. Wecht's intentions.

"You must give your jurors the ammunition to use in the jury room," Mr.
Lindsay said. "You must anticipate there are jurors who are against
you, who are going to argue the position of the other side, and you
must therefore give your jurors what to say when this issue comes up."

INSIDE THE WECHT CASE

Sunday, March 16, 2008
The government has charged Dr. Cyril H. Wecht with 41 offenses: theft of
honest services through mail and wire fraud; mail and wire fraud; and theft
from an organization receiving federal funds.

Prosecutors allege that Dr. Wecht used public resources while Allegheny
County coroner to enrich himself. They also accuse him of using faxes and
mailings to defraud private clients.

Below are some of the components of the alleged schemes, the government's
case and the defense's argument.

CADAVERS
Scheme: Dr. Wecht sent Allegheny County cadavers to Carlow University for
student autopsies in violation of state law. Under the agreement, he
received free lab space for his private practice.
Prosecution: Dr. Wecht did not have authority to conduct autopsies when the
cause and manner of death were not in question. He struck a private contract
with Carlow but used bodies at the coroner's office -- "wards"
of the county, in one official's words -- to fulfill his obligation while
enjoying rent-free space.
Defense: Carlow's former president, who made the deal with Dr. Wecht,
testified that no body-trading agreement was ever made or discussed and said
she was "beside herself" to learn of the charges.

LIMOUSINES
Scheme: Dr. Wecht bilked private clients by billing them for $80 and $90
round-trip limousine rides he never took.
Prosecution: Dr. Wecht drove himself to the airport and coroner's office
employees would drive his county car back to Pittsburgh.
Secretaries used fake receipts and disguised their handwriting to make it
look like both portions of a round-trip invoice were filled out on different
days when, in fact, they were completed at the same time.
Defense: Dr. Wecht's former top administrative assistant at the coroner's
office testified that she and her predecessor were responsible for the
disguised handwriting and that Dr. Wecht had no idea of what they were
doing. She said he explained that the limousine fee covered various
"incidental" expenses incurred while traveling.

AIRFARE
Scheme: Dr. Wecht regularly overcharged and sent private clients bills
for airfare.
Prosecution: The bills were sent on invoices from a defunct travel
agency that included a stamp that said "paid" and initials. The agency
did not issue the invoices and had nothing to do with their use.
Defense: Dr. Wecht's secretaries, who handled the billing, would
routinely send clients invoices based on quotes of plane ticket prices
and did not reconcile bills with the actual expenses. Some plane
tickets were charged for the right amount or less.

WECHT DETAILS
Scheme: Coroner's office employees would daily be asked to run any
number of personal errands for Dr. Wecht.
Prosecution: Numerous witness testified about the errands and some said
they feared retaliation if they disobeyed. Deputy coroner John J. Smith
said Dr. Wecht paid him $2 for one detail.
Defense: Lead defense attorney Jerry McDevitt characterized the errands
as "favors." The government stipulated that errands run to the Cyril H.
Wecht Institute of Forensic Science and Law at Duquesne University were
not part of the scheme, and former Chief Deputy Coroner Joseph Dominick
said that would drastically reduce the number of Wecht details.

PRIVATE WORK
Scheme:Dr. Wecht operated a "substantial" portion of his private
business, Cyril H. Wecht and Pathology Associates using county
resources.
Prosecution: County secretaries testified to handling bookkeeping,
billing, correspondence and client intake for Dr. Wecht while at the
coroner's office during the workday. They used county fax machines and
computer equipment to help Dr. Wecht earn tens of thousands of dollars.
"Defendant is not innocent of theft of honest services because one of
the interstate wire transmissions sent in furtherance of the scheme
didn't take long or cost much to send," the government wrote in a
filing.
Defense: Dr. Wecht's secretaries always completed their county duties.
One, Eileen Young, testified that she worked nights and weekends,
bought her own stamps and paper, and used a computer provided by Dr.
Wecht. The faxes sent cost the county $3.96.

.AOLWebSuite .AOLPicturesFullSizeLink { height: 1px; width: 1px; overflow: hidden; }