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.

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

finally... something correct!

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

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.

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.

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.

QUOTE(Denis Pointing @ Mar 16 2008, 12:25 PM)

QUOTE(Dawn Meredith @ Mar 16 2008, 05:15 AM)

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

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; }

The same prosecutorial misconduct behind Wecht [read politicial] is behind Spitzer and MANY others. The Judge in Wecht's case is a right-wing one and has refused this to be entered into the proceedings - to my mind very unfairly...but what else is new in American Jurisprudence these days. I don't want to divert the thread, but look here at the Bush Judicial in yet another attack. Hardly a person on earth if closely watched can't be found to do something in private that is a minor picadillo...but hardly a real crime....and to not go after the REAL criminals is telling!

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=120673

I know Cryil and have been in his office and seen him work. He works like a fiend - hard. This nation has lost all perspective, balance and sense of fairness. Let's clean-up the real criminals in the Beltway and in the Judicial Prosecutors Offices. We'll get around to the petty crimes much after. All of the persecutions are political....

QUOTE(Peter Lemkin @ Mar 17 2008, 10:06 AM)

The same prosecutorial misconduct behind Wecht [read politicial] is behind Spitzer and MANY others. The Judge in Wecht's case is a right-wing one and has refused this to be entered into the proceedings - to my mind very unfairly...but what else is new in American Jurisprudence these days. I don't want to divert the thread, but look here at the Bush Judicial in yet another attack. Hardly a person on earth if closely watched can't be found to do something in private that is a minor picadillo...but hardly a real crime....and to not go after the REAL criminals is telling!

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=120673

I know Cryil and have been in his office and seen him work. He works like a fiend - hard. This nation has lost all perspective, balance and sense of fairness. Let's clean-up the real criminals in the Beltway and in the Judicial Prosecutors Offices. We'll get around to the petty crimes much after. All of the persecutions are political....

Absolutely. Read the Plast article posted by Nathaniel on the Political Conspiracies section of this forum: Spitzer HIt + 200Billion Dollar Bank Bailout. Read it and weap. (And ask why would this man put himself in this situation? Another Gary Hart!)
Dawn

Spitzer breaking the law possibly even including the Mann Act (a serious offense) constitutes prosecutorial misconduct? I am aware of no hint that Spitzer was entrapped.

The argument advanced by Meredith/Lemkin must be that anyone left of center should never be prosecuted for commission of a crime. Curious indeed!

QUOTE(Tim Gratz @ Mar 17 2008, 01:42 PM)

Spitzer breaking the law possibly even including the Mann Act (a serious offense) constitutes prosecutorial misconduct? I am aware of no hint that Spitzer was entrapped.

The argument advanced by Meredith/Lemkin must be that anyone left of center should never be prosecuted for commission of a crime. Curious indeed!

Who said he was entrapped? HE PUT HIMSELF IN THIS POSITION. Did you bother to read the article? CAN you read?
Several of my favorite members left because of you, curious that you are now back.
End of conversation. And as far as your PM to me goes, you misread that post as well. I never once said
I thought the Morely lawsuit was a slam dunk.. I said the judges seemed to know it was an important issue. Again CAN you read?
Bye TG. I have a real job to go to and no time for your pretend- to- misunderstand crap.

Dawn Meredith
A licenced attorney, overly busy at the moment and no time for fools.

Moderator: I thought insults were against the rules, or is there an exception if aimed at me?

Dawn, I care less about your insults. At least I normally spell correctly.

Now to the merits: Lemkin said it was prosecutorial misconduct and you said "Absolutely." Now you admit that without being trapped he knowingly broke the laws he was sworn to enforce.

And how in the world can you as an attorney agree with Peter that there is prosecutorial misconduct when the last I heard no one had announced a decision whether or not to prosecute him.

Strange indeed!

2:29 p.m.

Schwab is now giving final jury instructions. Jurors have elected to deliberate from 8:30 a.m. until 2 p.m. each day except for Fridays, which they will take off.

During his closing arguments earlier, defense attorney Jerry McDevitt equated the government's case against Wecht to "legal buckshot" and urged jurors to acquit his client on all charges.

He said prosecutors failed to prove their case.

"The government spent seven weeks and called 44 witnesses, but they did not come close to proving one crime. Not even close," McDevitt said.

McDevitt referred to the government's case as having four parts, the same number of chambers in the heart. He used that analogy to attack the heart of the federal case.

First, McDevitt said many prosecution witnesses testified that they never told Wecht about work on his private cases being done at the coroner's office. Most notably, McDevitt said no evidence was presented that showed Wecht knew histology tissue slides were being prepared at the morgue by George Hollis, the county's former chief histologist.

One witness, former county pathologist Dr. Bennet Omalu, testified that it was common knowledge around the office that Hollis worked on Wecht's private cases while on the county clock.

McDevitt said that isn't enough proof.

"When common knowledge walks into a courtroom and subjects itself to cross examination," McDevitt said, "maybe we can establish some credibility."

McDevitt asked jurors to dismiss the first 27 counts, related to theft of honest services through wire and mail fraud, because Wecht did not knowingly participate in a scheme to rip off the county by using public employees and resources to benefit his private pathology consulting firm.

He railed at prosecutors for not calling Hollis, who has a cooperation agreement with the government, to testify. McDevitt also repeatedly questioned why prosecutors did not call any of the FBI agents, including lead investigator Special Agent Bradley Orsini.

McDevitt accused prosecutors of pressing forward with accusations that Wecht traded bodies from the county morgue to Carlow University despite knowing that was not true. He said prosecutors did not present any witnesses who were interviewed about the arrangement before Wecht was indicted in January 2006.

The defense argues Wecht, as an elected coroner, had the authority to use unclaimed bodies for educational purposes, such as the autopsy specialist program he helped establish at Carlow in 2003.

McDevitt urged jurors to dismiss charges that Wecht bilked his private clients by inflating airfare charges and billing for limousine rides he never took, saying they failed to call any "victims" in many of the charges. The ones they did call said they didn't have a problem with the travel charges billed, McDevitt said.

None of the district attorneys in outlying counties testified to being ripped off by Wecht, who is accused of billing them for mileage after he used to county car to travel for court appearances in private cases.

"State prosecutors would not walk into this courtroom and play the game these federal prosecutors want them to play. Think about that, prosecutors not supporting prosecutors," McDevitt said. "They still hire him. They couldn't care less about this mileage charge stuff."

McDevitt also said the government failed to break down exactly how much time and money the county lost from coroner's office employees working on Wecht's private cases.

McDevitt said Wecht has Pittsburgh in his DNA.

"He is to this city in forensic pathology what the Steelers are in football," McDevitt said.

He said the government failed to present evidence showing a true crime had been committed.

"They want you to take a shotgun, fill it up with legal buckshot and fire it around the room in hopes one pellet will strike a bird. That's what this is, legal buckshot," McDevitt said, adding later: "This man has spent his life getting justice for people, getting justice for murders, people who are falsely accused of murder, justice for children, justice for people with black lung. ... Forty-one times not guilty. No buckshot. No miscarriage of justice."

Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Stallings, in his brief rebuttal to McDevitt's closing arguments, asked jurors to follow the law and their common sense.

He said Wecht devised a scheme to use county employees and resources for personal profit as soon as he was re-elected coroner in 1996.

"The defendant knew full well he was using the county's resources to run his private business," Stallings said.

He asked jurors to base their decision on the evidence, "not the musings by Mr. McDevitt why witnesses were or were not called in this case."

"This is the real issue on trial," Stallings said. "Where did all the money go? Where did all the benefit flow? ... It all flowed to Dr. Cyril H. Wecht's pocket, literally."


10:39 a.m.

A person can scheme to commit a crime without necessarily conjuring images of Snidely Whiplash planning to harm Dudley Do-Right, Assistant U.S. Attorney James Wilson told jurors at the beginning of his opening arguments.

Wilson said it also can be exemplified by how Dr. Cyril H. Wecht used county-paid employees and county-controlled resources to benefit his private pathology consulting business.

In 2004, Cyril H. Wecht and Pathology Associates earned $790,000 in consulting fees for private work largely done through the coroner's office, Wilson said.

"You don't in a fit of inattention produce $790,000 of income in a calendar year," Wilson said. "There's a plan. There's a purpose."

That plan and purpose, Wilson told jurors, was for Wecht's secretaries and lab scientists to work on Wecht's private cases at the morgue while on county time. Wilson said Wecht also profited by having deputy coroners run errands and perform duties outside that had nothing to do with their jobs but which would have cost Wecht or his business.

Wilson became emotional when discussing the allegation that Wecht struck a deal to perform autopsies at Carlow University on unclaimed bodies from the county morgue. Wilson said that deal was illegal because Wecht used bodies in the county's control to obtain free lab space for his private business.

"The mess the Carlow program became, all of that, every bit, belongs to the coroner, too," Wilson said. "He was using something precious that came into the custody of the coroner's office to satisfy his obligations through a private contract."

As a side note, U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab cautioned those packed into the courtroom to do what is necessary to keep their seats. A throng of people are waiting outside the courtroom in hopes of snagging a seat.


8:31 a.m.

Closing arguments are getting started in the federal public corruption trial of Dr. Cyril H. Wecht. The courtroom is packed once again, as it was when the trial began Jan. 28.

Sigrid Wecht, wife of the former Allegheny County coroner, is seated in the front row. Also seated in the front row is Dick Thornburgh, the former Pennsylvania governor and U.S. attorney general who is part of Wecht's defense team.

It's nearly standing-room only, as it was for opening statements.

The crowds dropped off significantly as the trial went on for seven weeks before the government and Wecht's defense team rested last Tuesday. Prosecutors called 44 witnesses. Wecht's lawyers called none.

Each side has up to 90 minutes to give closing arguments.

Peter must be in the courtroom.

There's some good coverage here, including a reporter that text-messages from the court for his blog:

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/1...720/detail.html

FWIW I just received an email from Cryil Wecht, thanking me for mine to him. He thanked me for my continued support, but was more terse than usual - though still hopefull.....no doubt tense due to the anxiety of both the decision to not call any defense witnesses and the wait now for the Jury's verdict....

....I certainly think that a fair look at this shows no real crimes, and selective prosecution [which was not allowed by this ultra-right Judge to be discussed in Court].

Peter, in order to demonstrate selective prosecution the defendant must show that others committed similar acts but were not prosecuted.

I have not been following the case as you have but certainly the evidence as adduced demonstrates crimes (not to say the evidence is necessarily correct).

You claim that the "ultra-right" judge improperly disallowed evidence of selective prosecution. I assume since you make this charge you are familiar with what evidence Dr. Wecht had that others who had committed similar acts were NOT prosecuted. Can you advise what evidence there was that you believe should have been admitted?

QUOTE(Peter Lemkin @ Mar 19 2008, 05:57 AM)

FWIW I just received an email from Cryil Wecht, thanking me for mine to him. He thanked me for my continued support, but was more terse than usual - though still hopefull.....no doubt tense due to the anxiety of both the decision to not call any defense witnesses and the wait now for the Jury's verdict....

....I certainly think that a fair look at this shows no real crimes, and selective prosecution [which was not allowed by this ultra-right Judge to be discussed in Court].

Peter:
Please tell him a lot of people are praying for him. He won't remember me- I met him at the COPA convention in '98. Told him he's long been a hero to me, took his pic. But as I said, there'd be no reason for him to remember. (It was the same night Vince Salandria gave the keynote address, the first night- Friday). I'd also had some correspondance with son Ben over the years. But none with Dr. Wecht himself. I just checked to see if Court tv was by chance covering it, but they are not. As I recall the judge (who makes all tv camera calls, said no. A lot of other unusual secret things too.
Dawn

Done. If anyone else wants messages passed to him before or after Jury Verdict, just let me know. From what I understand this Judge was a real, REAL, RightWing 'Activist' Judge

Denis,

Take it from someone who knows all too well from experience, those who offer differing points of view get personally attacked on this forum. Most members respect those with opposing view points but a minority doesn’t. Some of those who crow the most (correctly to a large extent) about the fascistic tendencies of Bush and his crew are ironically among those most likely to show similar tendencies here, doing their best to shut up voices they disagree with..

Len

Tim,

Don’t expect logical thinking to come in over such an emotional issue as the Wecht trial. Much as I was a supporter of Spitzer (I voted for him three times) and don’t think his peccadillo serious enough morally or legally to warrent his resignation, I find the notion that his downfall was the result of anything other than his own poor judgment unfounded. I’ve seen no evidence, that it was a result of any sort of “prosecutorial misconduct” or campaign to “get” Spitzer. The Palast article was long on speculation and short on evidence.

As for the rules against personal attacks and insults they are very rarely enforced.

Len

Wecht is a moral/ethical giant compared to you Mr. T, and on legal ethics I'll spare you the reply you deserve. Wecht has championed Truth on JFK medical evidence, much to the displeasure of the Government, and they are targeting him for it. If everyone who spent [maybe!] $4.xx in faxes to the employer they work for the Courts would be busy indeed. All your heros are not even charged for murder, pre-emptive War based on falsehoods, genocide, torture, illegal spying, lies to the Public to mislead and defraud, treason, conversion of monies of the People, and worse. Typical of the Far-Right....murder, mayham, stealing from, covert ops against the poor, middle-class, and 'others' is OK....if wraped in a false-flag and done for Empire, Oligarchy and American Myth / Religion. The Right has made a habit of going after Centrists and Left of Center for nothing but political dirty tricks...while they very often speak-out against the very sins they are involved with. When they aren't doing political / personal assassinations, the Right has been doing just about all the real assassinations.

You will notice, of course, that Peter cannot answer my question and he offers not one iota of evidence that the Wecht trial was the result of "selective prosecution". His view of the case derives, I suggest, not from facts but rather from his "world view".

Of course I agree with Dr. Wecht's position on the asassination and I admire his work on it and his courage in offering his dissenting position to the collective view of so many of his peers (in fact I once had a very brief but very pleasant conversation with Dr. Wecht in which he stated that Gov. Connally's wounds come have come from a gunman firing from the 6th floor west window of the TSBD). I hope that he is innocent and that if is innocent that justice will be done.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Wecht

I actually have no defined position regarding Dr. Wecht’s legal predicament. I haven’t looked into it enough. On one hand as Dennis pointed out he certainly seems guilty of various infractions, on the other I agree with Bill that the charges seem pretty petty ante. I don’t know enough about the charges against him or how people in similar situations were treated. I doubt many member’s here know enough about the latter to come to an informed opinion and agree with Dennis that most probably reached a conclusion based on his contributions to JFK assassination research. It is interesting to note that seemingly not even Wecht or his attorneys are saying he was being prosecuted over his opinions regarding the assassination or pressure from the Bush administration but rather over his feud with the local (state) DA.

http://kdka.com/topstories/Dr.Cyril.Wecht.2.381156.html
http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/4051274/detail.html


My points were that:

1) most member’s will find it difficult to be objective about this case and
2) some member’s seeming unable to deal with dissenting opinions personally attack those who disagree with their views

Thank’s for illustrating both. I wouldn't be surprised if you call me a ‘clown’, ‘borg’ or Nazi as you’ve done in the past to me and others guilty of the crime of having a different POV than Peter Lemkin. Despite all you fulminations about the creeping fascism of Bush and his cronies you don’t seem much different from (leading “truther”) Kevin Barrett who called for the execution of Amy Goodman and other journalists.

“All your heros are not even charged for murder, pre-emptive War based on falsehoods, genocide, torture, illegal spying, lies to the Public to mislead and defraud, treason, conversion of monies of the People, and worse. Typical of the Far-Right....murder, mayham, stealing from, covert ops against the poor, middle-class, and 'others' is OK....if wraped in a false-flag and done for Empire, Oligarchy and American Myth / Religion.”

How the hell would you know who my heroes are? You assume I’m right wing just because I disagree with your views on 9/11 etc? In case you missed it, so do (did) Chomsky, Ed Said, Finkelstein, Amy Goodman, Ward Churchill and Cockburn among others, are we to assume they’re all closet fascists ? Are you going libel me again with the claim that Goebbels is one of my heroes?

We may get a verdict today.

I believe that the jury took the weekend and yesterday off, but that they continue deliberating today.

This should be interesting.

Tim, while Peter, of course, has no proof that this is "selective prosecution" the circumstances of Wecht's prosecution are indeed curious. In my experience as a newsreader, political figures guilty of similar "crimes" are usually removed from office and disgraced. I can't recall one similar prosecution.

When one reads about J. Edgar Hoover, moreover, it's clear he was guilty of far worse "crimes" (not even mentioning his blackmailing and withholding of evidence apparent elsewhere). He had his black chauffeurs declared agents so they could avoid military service, and so he could tell congress there were indeed black FBI agents. He also had his agents write propaganda books promoting the FBI and attacking communism, released them under his own name, and pocketed the proceeds. He also had the FBI exhibits section constantly remodel his home, at taxpayer expense.

Would you not agree that, if Wecht is guilty of "crimes," Hoover was a master criminal?

And the fact that the FBI headquarters building bears his name tells us all we need to know about the FBI today.