Here's the link
I'm not the biggest fan of Kane's but Keisling brings up some good points....there's something seriously wrong with the judicial system in PA. How in the eff can a judge appoint a special prosecutor then except himself to be impartial when he is the one directing the special prosecutor??
A part of the article that stood out to me:
"In an opinion dated March 31, state Supreme Court Justice Max Baer wrote, “When a court seeks to engage in fact-finding, it employs a special master, not a special prosecutor. The function of a special master is to gather necessary factual information, consider pertinent legal questions, and provide the court with recommendations. Special masters operate as an arm of the court, investigating facts on behalf of the court and communicating with it to keep it apprised of its findings; they do not act as independent prosecutors.”
By appointing Carluccio as a prosecutor, Baer cautions, Judge Carpenter went too far.
“In addition to penning an inappropriately broad order, Judge Carpenter also permitted improper and relatively constant ex parte (or private and one-sided) communication between Mr. Carluccio and himself, offending notions of fundamental fairness,” Baer writes. “While such communication may have been understandable if this scenario was simply one involving a special master, here, as noted, the court attempted to vest Mr. Carluccio with the vast general authority of a prosecutor. Additionally, even when it became apparent that the investigation had focused on the Attorney General, the supervising judge conducted ex parte hearings with the special prosecutor and selected witnesses, resulting in orders to the detriment of the Attorney General, all the while engaging the special prosecutor ex parte and excluding the Attorney General from both the court conferences and the ex parte hearings. Such insular ex parte hearings had none of the trappings of due process, and, were not confined to grand jury matters, but rather, resembled the actions of a district attorney in an adversarial, as opposed to investigative, role, which requires due process.
“…I believe that Judge Carpenter’s appointment order, which the (court’s opinion) seemingly endorses, attempted to bestow upon (Special Prosecutor) Carluccio power that far exceeded the authority to investigate contempt and to report his findings to the court,” Baer wrote."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet, for some reason the PA Supreme Court still gave its approval to Montgomery County Judge Carpenter appointing his own “special prosecutor,” Thomas Carluccio, in matters of breaches of grand jury secrecy....wtf?? Apparently Fina/Corbett's reach goes quite far, smh.
I'm not the biggest fan of Kane's but Keisling brings up some good points....there's something seriously wrong with the judicial system in PA. How in the eff can a judge appoint a special prosecutor then except himself to be impartial when he is the one directing the special prosecutor??
A part of the article that stood out to me:
"In an opinion dated March 31, state Supreme Court Justice Max Baer wrote, “When a court seeks to engage in fact-finding, it employs a special master, not a special prosecutor. The function of a special master is to gather necessary factual information, consider pertinent legal questions, and provide the court with recommendations. Special masters operate as an arm of the court, investigating facts on behalf of the court and communicating with it to keep it apprised of its findings; they do not act as independent prosecutors.”
By appointing Carluccio as a prosecutor, Baer cautions, Judge Carpenter went too far.
“In addition to penning an inappropriately broad order, Judge Carpenter also permitted improper and relatively constant ex parte (or private and one-sided) communication between Mr. Carluccio and himself, offending notions of fundamental fairness,” Baer writes. “While such communication may have been understandable if this scenario was simply one involving a special master, here, as noted, the court attempted to vest Mr. Carluccio with the vast general authority of a prosecutor. Additionally, even when it became apparent that the investigation had focused on the Attorney General, the supervising judge conducted ex parte hearings with the special prosecutor and selected witnesses, resulting in orders to the detriment of the Attorney General, all the while engaging the special prosecutor ex parte and excluding the Attorney General from both the court conferences and the ex parte hearings. Such insular ex parte hearings had none of the trappings of due process, and, were not confined to grand jury matters, but rather, resembled the actions of a district attorney in an adversarial, as opposed to investigative, role, which requires due process.
“…I believe that Judge Carpenter’s appointment order, which the (court’s opinion) seemingly endorses, attempted to bestow upon (Special Prosecutor) Carluccio power that far exceeded the authority to investigate contempt and to report his findings to the court,” Baer wrote."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet, for some reason the PA Supreme Court still gave its approval to Montgomery County Judge Carpenter appointing his own “special prosecutor,” Thomas Carluccio, in matters of breaches of grand jury secrecy....wtf?? Apparently Fina/Corbett's reach goes quite far, smh.
