2013 WL 2394663
Ct. Jud. Disc. Pa2013Background
- Judicial Conduct Board sought interim suspension of Judge Bruno without pay under Article V, §18(d)(2) after a U.S. indictment charging three counts (conspiracy, wire fraud, mail fraud).
- Court concluded it may enter interim orders before a hearing, and that 18(d)(2) contemplates such action without being a final order.]
- Court analyzed whether interim suspension should be with pay or without pay under totality of circumstances; determined suspension with pay is appropriate given relatedness of charges to duties and potential harm to justice and public confidence.
- Court noted the Supreme Court had suspended Bruno without pay on February 1, 2013, but ruled this Court retains authority to issue interim suspensions under 18(d)(2) and to proceed with its own ongoing consideration.
- Court examined the nature of the charges, the limited scope of alleged conspiracies, and compared past interim suspension cases to determine the appropriate form of relief.
- Court concluded that, on balance, interim suspension with pay is warranted rather than without pay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to issue interim suspension under 18(d)(2) | Board argues 18(d)(2) authorizes interim suspensions before a hearing. | Bruno contends 18(d)(2) grants court authority and must be interpreted in light of 1993 amendments. | Yes; court has exclusive authority to issue interim suspensions under 18(d)(2). |
| Whether interim suspension should be with or without pay | Board seeks interim suspension without pay to deter misconduct. | Totality of circumstances favors suspension with pay to minimize disruption and protect integrity. | Interim suspension with pay is appropriate. |
| Whether the charges establish mail/wire fraud under property-right theory | Weak; government failed to show property rights or foreseeability; counts challenged on statutory grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Melvin, 57 A.3d 226 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.2012) (interim suspension with pay discussed in context of public confidence and gravity of conduct)
- In re Jaffe, 814 A.2d 308 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.2003) (extensive discussion of interim suspension and due process considerations)
- In re Merlo, 17 A.3d 869 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.2011) (interim suspension framework and conflicts with Supreme Court rulings)
- In re Franciscus, 471 Pa. 58, 369 A.2d 1190 (Pa. 1977) (original framework for King’s Bench supervisory power and emergency action)
- In re Avellino, 547 Pa. 385, 690 A.2d 1138 (Pa. 1997) (supervisory powers and post-1993 context for interim actions)
- Carpentertown Coal & Coke Co. v. Laird, 360 Pa. 94, 61 A.2d 426 (Pa. 1948) (historical basis for King’s Bench supervisory authority)
- United States v. Cross and Melograne, 128 F.3d 145 (3d Cir.1997) (mail fraud/conspiracy limitations; completion of scheme before mailings)
- Cleveland v. United States, 531 U.S. 12, 121 S. Ct. 365 (1999) (property-right requirement for mail/wire fraud)
- Pasquantino v. United States, 544 U.S. 349, 125 S. Ct. 1766 (2005) (property rights in government hands for fraud statute)
- United States v. Gimbel, 830 F.2d 621 (7th Cir.1987) (property-right requirement discussion under §1341)
- United States v. McNally, 483 U.S. 350 (1987) (property-right element in mail fraud)
- United States v. Schwartz, 924 F.2d 410 (2d Cir.1991) (regulatory government interests not property for fraud statute)
- United States v. Mariani, 90 F. Supp. 2d 574 (M.D. Pa. 2000) (regulatory penalties not property for fraud statute)