In Re Lokuta, 11 A.3d 427

Judge Lokuta was removed from Luzerne County bench after Court of Judicial Discipline found multiple misconducts and prejudicial conduct; remand ordered to consider after-discovered evidence arising from Luzerne County corruption; remand narrowed to recent corruption involving Ciavarella, Conahan, Sharkey, Moran; on remand she could present new evidence but discovery limited; Bonner case evidence and notice issues contested; prior and ongoing investigations into corruption affected proceedings and credibility of witnesses.
Remand order directed that the CJD consider after-discovered evidence related to recent corruption and determine if new hearing or outcome alteration was warranted; Lokuta argued broader context should be examined, Board argued remand scope limited to known corruption.
Judge Sprague’s recusal issue was raised; Sprague denied recusal motions, Board argued appearance of impropriety not proven; appellate review of recusal denial was at issue.
Issues include whether Sprague was constitutionally eligible due to age and whether Musmanno and Bucci were disqualified; the court held these waiveable for failure to raise timely.
Court determined the remand scope did not warrant new evidence beyond the specified corruption and did not allow new evidence to alter the original removal decision; found sanctions lawful.
The Board argued the process was conducted with diligence, and Lokuta failed to show prejudice from any discovery or sealed materials.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Recusal of Conference Judge Sprague	Lokuta asserts Sprague's representation of Powell/PA Child Care created appearance of impropriety	Board contends no appearance of impropriety and no failure of due process	Recusal denial reviewed for abuse of discretion; no abuse found; appearance concerns insufficient to overturn
Constitutional eligibility for composition of CJD	Sprague age/Board member eligibility should render CJD proceedings invalid	Retirement age for judges does not apply to CJD; no disqualification	Waived for failure to raise timely; not merits-based disqualification
Scope of remand order	Remand allowed broader after-discovered evidence context of corruption	Remand limited to corruption revelations contemporaneous with remand order	Remand properly construed as limited to then-recent corruption; no expansion for later revelations
Admissibility of after-discovered evidence and sufficiency	New corruption evidence could change outcome; not mere impeachment	Evidence unlikely to affect outcome; credibility issues remain with other witnesses	Remand evidence not sufficient to warrant new sanctions or new evidentiary hearing; sanction removal sustained
Sealed materials and Brady/discovery issues	Sealed/hidden materials could exculpate Lokuta; Brady violations	Material not exculpatory; no prejudice proven; discovery rules applicable	No due process violation; sealed materials not exculpatory or outcome-changing; Brady claims failed

In re Berkhimer, 593 Pa. 366 (Pa. 2007) (judicial proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature; due process applies)
Joseph v. Scranton Times L.P., 604 Pa. 677 (Pa. 2009) (appearance of impropriety can require new proceedings)
In re Melograne, 571 Pa. 490 (Pa. 2002) (sanctions and authority in judicial discipline; public confidence)
McFall, 533 Pa. 24 (Pa. 1992) (appearance of impropriety and recusal standards)
Commonwealth v. Tedford, 598 Pa. 639 (Pa. 2008) (due process considerations in prosecutorial conduct)
Joseph v. Scranton Times L.P., 604 Pa. 677 (Pa. 2009) (per curiam review of sanctions and scope of remand)