Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by pc86 3599 days ago
This article is from 2009, and the judge is currently serving a nearly 3-decade sentence for his numerous crimes.
1 comments

The article says the judges took a plea deal for only 87 months of prison time.
Another problem with using decade-old sources :)

The article above is from 2/29/09. A 2014 article[0] shows their guilty pleas were later rejected due to their behavior, and both given larger sentences.

> Both originally agreed to spend seven years in prison, but then Ciavarella talked exclusively with Newswatch 16.

> "I loved the juvenile court, I loved helping those kids. I would never do anything to hurt a child, that's just not what I do. That's not me. I was always there for those kids. I resent the fact that people think I did something improper. I didn't do anything improper when it came to the care of those kids," said Ciavarella in July of 2009.

> Days after that interview, a federal judge rejected the guilty pleas of Ciavarella and Conahan, saying their behavior didn't really accept guilt.

[0] http://wnep.com/2014/01/26/five-years-since-ciavarella-and-c...

The article you link to says it may be outdated :) Do you know of their current status?
According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons' inmate locator[0]:

Mark Ciavarella (#15008-067): Ashland FCI until 30 December 2035

Michael Conahan (#15009-067): Coleman Low FCI until 18 December 2026

[0] https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/

Other sources agree with the 28 year sentence. Here's one from 2013 regarding an appeal being denied, and as far as I can find it didn't go any higher.

http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/court-denies-civarella-appe...

EDIT - You can verify this online at https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ and search for 15008-067

Apparently at least one of them continued saying they were innocent after the plea deal (in which they admitted guilt), so a court threw out the plea and retried them in 2011, resulting in 17 and 28 year sentences instead of the plea of 7.25.
Hahaha thanks co-defendant! When you lie down with dogs...
This was the one flaw in the otherwise excellent FBI and Pennsylvania Attorney General investigations.

They never should have allowed the number of jointly tried cases that they did. They used joint prosecution as a tactic, combining lesser hard-to-prove charges against one defendant with severe charges against another in the same trial, relying upon the strength of the evidence against one defendant to damn them both.

Regardless, their investigation was very beneficial in the long run. Low-level corruption used to be endemic in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area, until the Federal government came to town. Following the "Kids for Cash" case, the area became the subject of a wide-ranging inquiry into official abuse of office.

By the time the dust settled, close to two dozen officials were criminally charged, including a state senator, a very wealthy commercial real estate developer, and two county commissioners.

Normally I'd be unhappy about this sort of prosecutorial overreach, but in this case I guess the lesson would be not to overlook the corruption of fellow judges. High school students are held to that standard; I think we can hold judges to it. Even if the co-defendant didn't profit as enthusiastically from the false imprisonment of children, he had to have known it was happening.