Murphy admits to having affair with friend
Congressman faces deposition in case
Congressman Tim Murphy publicly admitted Wednesday to having an extramarital affair with a personal friend, issuing a statement about the relationship hours after the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette prevailed in a court motion to unseal a divorce action.
Mr. Murphy, R-Upper St. Clair, is not a party to the divorce. However, the husband in the case, Jesse Sally, a sports medicine physician, sought in July to depose the congressman as part of his divorce from Shannon Edwards, a forensic psychologist.
Dorothy Wolbert, who represents Dr. Sally, said that the deposition is relevant to alimony requested by Ms. Edwards.
“He has the right to know what went on with this marital misconduct,” Ms. Wolbert argued on Wednesday before Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Kathryn Hens-Greco.
Dr. Sally alleges that the affair between his wife and Mr. Murphy began in February 2016.
Mr. Murphy’s attorney, Kenneth J. Horoho Jr., argued to quash the subpoena, saying that
the affair was already out in the open.
“Why do you need to depose him other than to harass him?” he asked. “They got the marital misconduct. They admit it.
“At some point, your honor, it does rise to the level of harassment and bad faith.”
Judge Hens-Greco, on Wednesday, denied the motion to quash, and Mr. Murphy must be deposed by Dr. Sally’s attorney by Sept. 29. He must also provide calendar entries regarding political and work events, as well as text and email communications between himself and Ms. Edwards.
Following the conclusion of the hearing, Mr. Murphyissued a statement through his attorney late Wednesday afternoon.
“Last year I became involved in an affair with a personal friend. This is nobody’s fault but my own, and I offer no excuses. To the extent that there should be any blame in this matter, it falls solely upon me.
“I ask the media to respect the privacy of my family. They have done nothing wrong and deserve to be left alone.”
The statement concluded by Mr. Murphy indicating he would say nothing more on the matter.
In an interview Wednesday evening, Ms. Edwards said that her relationship with Mr. Murphy has ended.
Mr. Murphy, 64, who is in his eighth term in Congress, is a practicing psychologist and is married with an adult daughter. Ms. Edwards, 32, has a doctoral degree, and her practice involves significant work within the Allegheny County court system, performing evaluations of defendants in criminal and child custody cases.
The two met, she said, when she contacted his office to volunteer to do work on his mental health bill that was signed into law in December.
“I respect him as a colleague,” she said. “We worked very hard to pass legislation that helps my clients.
“We had a collegial and friend relationship before anything else.”
In a Feb. 2 hearing, Ms. Edwards testified that a physical relationship with Mr. Murphy did not begin until after her marriage had failed. She and her husband were married on July 28, 2012.
In court filings, Dr. Sally alleged that the affair his wife had with Mr. Murphy “caused the marriage to end.” But Ms. Edwards denies that, saying “An extramarital affair was not responsible for the dissolution of our marriage. We are both responsible for the dissolution of our marriage and the role each of us played in that.”
The initial divorce complaint filed by Dr. Sally referred to adultery, and later filings noted Ms. Edwards was having a relationship with “a wellknown political figure in the community.”
Dr. Sally alleged in court documents that Ms. Edwards’ affair with Mr. Murphy began in approximately February 2016 and continued until the fall of 2016. Dr. Sally’s attorney listed a dozen dates in Pittsburgh, Washington, D.C., and Miami where he claimed the relationship occurred. They began in Washington, from Feb. 24, and concluded in Miami from July 19-21.
Ms. Edwards said the trips cited were made to advocate on behalf of Mr. Murphy’s legislation. In the February court hearing, she testified that she did not make the trips “with” him.
Ms. Wolbert said during the hearing Wednesday that Mr. Murphy and Ms. Edwards had 392 phone calls with each other between March 14, 2016, and May 23, 2016.
The initial divorce proceeding was sealed by Judge Hens-Greco on July 13, 2016, after Ms. Edwards filed a motion seeking to have the docket and its contents protected, alleging that if it were to be publicly available it could impede her livelihood.
After the Post-Gazette sought to intervene and unseal the case on Aug. 3, Mr. Horoho and Ms. Edwards’ attorney, Timothy Gricks, fought to keep it closed.
At argument on that issue on Wednesday, PostGazette attorney Frederick Frank told the judge that the congressman and Ms. Edwards were required to show a compelling governmental interest as to why the case ought to remain sealed.
Mr. Horoho responded that there was “no legitimate purpose” to broadcast the contents of the file, and that his client was dragged into the case by Dr. Sally only to embarrass him.
He also contended that Mr. Murphy is already harassed regularly because of his political positions.
“Demonstrations will be increased. Harassment is going to increase,” he said. “Is there a legitimate issue? Is there a public interest?”
Mr. Horoho cited Mr. Murphy’s rights to be safe and free from harassment as that compelling interest.
“If at some point, we learn he’s abused his office, that’s a different story,” Mr. Horoho said.
But Judge Hens-Greco responded, “How does anyone know that it does not implicate his public duties?”
In unsealing the record, she told the parties that the Constitution says that all courts are to be open, and that neither Mr. Murphy’s nor Ms. Edwards’ rights to privacy outweigh the First Amendment right to a free press.
“How does her personal right to privacy trump the Post-Gazette’s right to tell people what I’m doing?” Judge HensGreco asked.
She noted that when she initially sealed the case, no parties had objected to it.
“The argument presented [then] was that her job providing evaluations to the court, that issues of her divorce, are not something people need to consider,” the judge said. “Maybe I was wrong.”