In re Ciavarella
Citation | 108 A.3d 983 |
Decision Date | 07 October 2014 |
Docket Number | No. 7 JD 11,7 JD 11 |
Parties | In re: Mark A. Ciavarella Former Judge Court of Common Pleas Luzerne County |
Court | Court of Judicial Discipline of Pennsylvania |
OPINION BY JUDGE PANELLA
The Judicial Conduct Board (“Board”) filed a Complaint with this Court on December 21, 2011, against Former Judge Mark A. Ciavarella (“Respondent”). The Complaint is based on Respondent's conduct and felony convictions for participating in a criminal conspiracy with Former Judge. Michael Conahan while the two served as judges of the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas. Among other criminal acts, they profited by taking bribes, kickbacks, extortionate payments, and other types of payoffs, and then attempted, by way of a number of schemes, to hide their illegal activities. The Board has charged that Respondent's conduct and multiple felony convictions subject him to discipline under Article V, § 18(d)(1) of the Pennsylvania Constitution. This conduct and the convictions occasioned by it constitute:
1. The Judicial Conduct Board is empowered by Article V, § 18 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to file formal charges alleging ethical misconduct on the part of judges, justices or magisterial district judges and to present the case in support of the formal charges before the Court of Judicial Discipline.
2. Respondent, a former trial judge, commenced service on January 1, 1996. Respondent was elected as President Judge and assumed the duties of President Judge in January 2006. He resigned from judicial service on March 16, 2009, while the federal criminal case was pending against him at U.S. v. Conahan, et al., 3:09–CR–00272–EMK–2.3
3. On September 9, 2009, Respondent was indicted by a federal grand jury in the case of U.S. v. Conahan, et al, 3:09–CR–00272–EMK–2, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. On September 29, 2010, a superseding Indictment was returned against the Respondent, which charged Respondent with 39 offenses.4
4. On February 18, 2011, at the conclusion of the jury trial which had commenced on February 7, 2011, the jury returned a verdict of guilty against the Respondent for the following offenses:5
5. On August 11, 2011, Judge Edwin Kosik sentenced Respondent to serve a period of incarceration of 240 months on Counts 1s and 2s, Counts 7s through 10s and Count 21s, to run concurrently with each other; a term of 60 months on Count 35s to run consecutively to the already mentioned counts; a term of 36 months on Counts 36s through 39s to run concurrently with each other and consecutively to the already mentioned counts; and to serve a period of three years of supervised release on Counts 1s, 2s, 7s through 10s, 21s and 35s and a term of one year on Counts 36s through 39s, all to ran concurrently. Respondent was also ordered to make restitution in the amount of $1,173,791.94; and to pay a special assessment of $1,200. An Amended Judgment and Sentencing order was filed the next day which required Respondent to forfeit the sum of $997,600,00 resulting from his conviction at Counts 1s, 2s 7s through 10s and 21s, Judge Kosik did not alter any other component of Mr. Ciavarella's sentence.
6. Respondent filed timely appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which eventually affirmed the convictions and sentences but, in a minor issue, remanded for modification of the $1,200.00 special assessment. The Supreme Court of the United States denied Respondent's petition for writ of certiorari on March 2, 2014.6
II. DISCUSSION
As specified in the Findings of Fact, Respondent has been convicted of numerous felonies by way of his participation in the infamous “kids-for-cash” scheme. His direct appeals are exhausted, therefore, the convictions have achieved the requisite finality to warrant the imposition of discipline by this Court pursuant to Article V, § 18(d)(1) of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
Although Respondent's violations justify discipline on many grounds even his felony convictions taken alone provide grounds for sanctions. The Pennsylvania Constitution provides, in pertinent part:
A justice, judge or justice of the peace may...
To continue reading
Request your trial