United States v. Mark Ciavarella, Jr.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 10513
3rd Cir.2013Background
- Ciavarella, former Luzerne County judge, convicted of racketeering, honest services mail fraud, money laundering conspiracy, and tax-related offenses in the Kids for Cash scandal.
- Judges Ciavarella and Conahan accepted a private detention-center scheme funded by Powell and Mericle; Ciavarella received substantial referral fees.
- Scheme included constructing/co-owning detention centers (PACC and WPACC) and housing juveniles there for financial gain; payments totaled over $2.1 million.
- Ciavarella failed to disclose conflicts of interest and outside income; local and state ethics rules required disclosure and recusal in affected matters.
- Widespread evidence of obstruction of justice, including efforts to destroy records and coordinating “stories” with Powell.
- Following indictment, Ciavarella pled guilty under a stipulated sentence but withdrew; trial resulted in his conviction on multiple counts and a 336-month sentence; the court remanded to adjust Count 7 special assessment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recusal of the district judge | Ciavarella argues Judge Kosik should recuse for perceived partiality from public letters and media references. | Kosik did not display deep-seated bias; comments were within permissible processing of the case. | No recusal required; no appearance of bias sufficient for disqualification. |
| Admissibility and impact of Rule 404(b) evidence | Difficulties with nondisclosure evidence aiding bribery/kickback theory of honest services. | Court properly admitted 404(b) evidence for relevant, non-propensity purposes under Huddleston. | Admissible; no abuse of discretion. |
| Confrontation and cross-examination limits | Limiting Powell/Owens cross-examination compromised defense. | Limits reasonable to prevent abuse; did not undo the defense’s theory. | No reversible error; limits within trial court discretion. |
| Statute of limitations and Count 7 timing | Certain Counts were time-barred; delays violated five-year limit. | Waivers and preservation issues; Count 7 vacated but not others; Štimeless challenges preserved or waived. | Count 7 vacated; other counts sustained; de novo resentencing not required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (U.S. Supreme Court 1994) (impartiality standard; appearance of partiality must be questioned by reasonable observer)
- In re Boston’s Children First, 244 F.3d 164 (1st Cir. 2001) (recusal due to judge's public comments in a locally significant case")
- United States v. Bergrin, 682 F.3d 261 (3d Cir. 2012) (recusal and impartiality analysis in complex cases")
- United States v. Chandler, 326 F.3d 210 (3d Cir. 2003) (two-step test for Confrontation Clause cross-examination limits")
- United States v. Wecht, 484 F.3d 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (assessing judge’s impartiality where prior proceedings influence rulings")
- In re Kensington Int’l Ltd., 353 F.3d 211 (3d Cir. 2003) (management of complex litigation and recusal discretion)