D.A. wants to bar Kane from discussing porn at trial
“Any public efforts to again raise the issue of pornographic emails as trial approaches and commences can only be viewed as an attempt to distract and influence the potential or sitting jury.”
— Montgomery County District Attorney Kevin R. Steele
NORRISTOWN >> Prosecutors want to bar embattled Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane from raising claims of “vindictive prosecution” and discussing her pornographic email investigation when her trial on alleged perjury charges gets underway next month.
“Her selective and vindictive prosecution claim has already been litigated and is not a defense at trial,” Montgomery County District Attorney Kevin R. Steele wrote in court documents filed Thursday. “Any public efforts to again raise the issue of pornographic emails as trial approaches and commences can only be viewed as an attempt to distract and influence the potential or sitting jury.”
Jury selection for Kane’s trial begins Aug. 8 before county Judge Wendy Demchick-Alloy and the trial is expected to last more than a week.
Kane, 50, a first-term Democrat, faces charges of perjury, obstructing administration of law, abuse of office and false swearing in connection with allegations she orchestrated the
illegal disclosure of confidential investigative information and secret grand jury information to the media and then engaged in acts designed to conceal and cover up her conduct.
Kane, who is not seeking re-election, has repeatedly claimed she did nothing wrong and has implied the charges are part of an effort by a so-called “good old boys” network to force her out of office because she discovered pornographic emails being exchanged between state employees on state email addresses.
“The commonwealth is concerned that, as trial
quickly approaches, defendant may once again return to her tired arguments of pornography and good old boys,” said Steele, adding such claims should not be presented to the jury. “In the event this were to occur, the commonwealth fears that the jury could have to suffer through sequestration.
“The commonwealth is concerned that defendant’s use of pornographic emails, which is legally and logically irrelevant to this case, could lead to a tainting of the jury pool or to the necessity of sequestering the jury. This concern arises as trial approaches and from defendant’s proclivity to discuss pornography at various critical stages of this criminal investigation and prosecution,” Steele added.
It’s unclear if DemchickAlloy will hold a hearing on Steele’s request.
Earlier this year, Gerald L. Shargel, Kane’s lead defense lawyer, argued Kane was the victim of “selective and vindictive prosecution” and he asked that the perjury charges be dismissed against Kane. Steele called the allegation “frivolous.”
On June 20, DemchickAlloy denied the defense request for a dismissal of charges and kept Kane’s trial on track.
During the pretrial process, Kane, through her lawyers, has filed papers alleging two former prosecutors in her office, Frank G. Fina and E. Marc Costanzo, instigated the investigation against her after they became “incensed” by Kane’s review of their work in two highprofile cases, including the investigation of former Pennsylvania State University coach Jerry Sandusky.
Kane’s lawyers alleged Fina and Costanzo in May 2014 sent a letter to county Judge William R. Carpenter “to report the release of grand jury information” and suggested an investigation.
“Attorney General Kane was singled out for investigation and subsequent prosecution in this case as a result of the initiative of prosecutors with personal antagonism towards Attorney General Kane…,” Shargel previously argued.
But Steele argued Fina and Costanzo had no role in the decision to file charges against Kane.
“Because Fina and Costanzo had no role in the charging decision in this case, the claim fails as a matter of law,” Steele previously argued.
With the charges against Kane, prosecutors allege she orchestrated the release of secret information about the 2009 Investigating Grand Jury No. 29 to Christopher Brennan, then a reporter at The Daily News, in order to retaliate against a former state prosecutor, Fina, with whom she was feuding and who she believed provided information to The Inquirer to embarrass her regarding a sting operation he was in charge of and which she shut down.
Kane also is accused of lying to the 35th statewide grand jury in November 2014 to cover up her alleged leaks by lying under oath when she claimed she never agreed to maintain her secrecy regarding the 2009 grand jury investigation.
County prosecutors allege they discovered evidence that Kane signed a so-called “secrecy oath” on her second day in office on Jan. 17, 2013, promising her secrecy for statewide investigating grand juries one through 32. The oath compelled Kane to maintain the secrecy of all matters occurring before past and present statewide grand juries, prosecutors alleged.