NORRISTOWN >> Montgomery County prosecutors oppose embattled Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane taking an appeal of a county judge’s pretrial rulings to a state court.
“The commonwealth believes that defendant is attempting to appeal a non-appealable order and it will soon file a motion to quash the appeal in the Superior Court,” District Attorney Kevin R. Steele wrote in court papers filed on Monday.
Last week, Kane’s defense lawyers, Gerald L. Shargel and Ross Kramer, surprised court officials when they announced during a pretrial hearing that they want to appeal county Judge Wendy Demchick-Alloy’s pretrial rulings, which denied some of Kane’s requests, to a state court before Kane’s trial on alleged perjury charges begins.
Demchick-Alloy gave Steele a week to respond to Shargel’s quest for an interim appeal.
Such appeals of pretrial rulings are rare and appeals normally are filed post-trial.
Under state law, the judge can agree or not agree to certify an interim pretrial appeal to the state Superior Court. Demchick-Alloy has not yet weighed in on whether she will certify an appeal of her pretrial rulings.
However, even if the judge refuses to certify Kane’s appeal, Kane’s lawyers could move forward with a so-called “interlocutory appeal” asking the Superior Court to review Demchick-Alloy’s pretrial rulings.
“Defendant’s notice of appeal fails to identify any Pennsylvania statute or rule that would permit this interlocutory appeal,” Steele maintained.
On March 28, Demchick-Alloy denied several of Kane’s pretrial motions, including Kane’s bid to bar the entire 22-member county bench from presiding over her alleged perjury trial and her request for an out-of-county judge to hear the case.
Any appeal to the state court at this point would likely delay the start of Kane’s Aug. 8 trial on charges of perjury, obstructing administration of law, abuse of office and false swearing in connection with allegations she orchestrated the illegal disclosure of confidential investigative information and secret grand jury information to the media and then engaged in acts designed to conceal and cover up her alleged conduct.
With the charges against Kane, prosecutors allege the 49-year-old first-term Democrat orchestrated the release of secret information about the 2009 Investigating Grand Jury No. 29 to Christopher Brennan, then a reporter at The Daily News, in order to retaliate against a former state prosecutor, Frank Fina, with whom she was feuding and who she believed provided information to The Inquirer to embarrass her regarding a sting operation he was in charge of and which she shut down.
Kane also is accused of lying to the 35th statewide grand jury in November 2014 to cover up her alleged leaks by lying under oath when she claimed she never agreed to maintain her secrecy regarding the 2009 grand jury investigation.
County prosecutors allege they discovered evidence that Kane signed a so-called “secrecy oath” on her second day in office on Jan. 17, 2013, promising her secrecy for statewide investigating grand juries one through 32. The oath compelled Kane to maintain the secrecy of all matters occurring before past and present statewide grand juries, prosecutors alleged.
Kane, who is not seeking re-election, has claimed she did nothing wrong and has implied the charges are part of an effort to force her out of office because she discovered pornographic emails being exchanged between state employees on state email addresses.