Apr 14, 2002 By Jennifer Harr 3 min read

In a 32-page opinion, Fayette County Judge John F. Wagner Jr. has disputed eight points of appeal on former Fayette County Commissioner Susanne B. Teslovich’s prostitution conviction, including one that she was selectively prosecuted. Teslovich, 55, of Rutter Lane, Smock, was convicted of two felony and four misdemeanor counts of prostitution and related offenses for operating First Class Entertainment Service. State police arrested her in 2000 and charged that she knowingly contracted women to have sex with clients under the guise of an escort business.

Wagner sentenced Teslovich to six to 36 months in a state prison and, after a failed bid to get her sentence reduced, Teslovich and her attorney, Jack W. Connor, appealed the conviction to the state Superior Court.

Wagner’s opinion, which goes over the issues of appeal filed by Connor, will be sent to the Superior Court to be made part of the record.

In the opinion, Wagner addresses Teslovich’s claim that prosecutors dealt with similar cases, and offered offenders in those matters probation or admittance to the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) program.

Wagner’s opinion noted that it was Teslovich’s burden to prove that “others similarly situated were not prosecuted for similar conduct” and that the selectivity was based on “race, religion, the exercise of some constitutional right, or any other such arbitrary classification.”

In noting that the issue was without merit, Wagner wrote that, “(Teslovich) was the sole owner of First Class Entertainment Service. There were no persons similarly situated who were promoting prostitution by owning or controlling a prostitution business, hiring prostitutes to work for the business, advertising that business to solicit business or setting up the meetings.”

Although Teslovich claimed that prosecution was selective because neither the patrons of the business nor the women who worked for her were charged, Wagner rejected that claim. The jurist said that those people would not be prosecuted for the same offenses as Teslovich.

Wagner also said Teslovich’s claim that she was prosecuted because she was a former county commissioner was in error.

“(Teslovich) offers no proof that she was prosecuted for anything other than her violations of the law. (Teslovich) argues she was discriminated against because she was offered nothing less than incarceration, and had to stand trial for her offense while identically charged defendants were offered ARD or probation. The decision to prosecute or not to prosecute is within the broad discretion of the prosecutor,” Wagner wrote.

The jurist also rejected claims that wiretap recordings made while Teslovich was in her home should have been suppressed. Additionally, he affirmed that the prosecution presented enough evidence to convict Teslovich, despite her claim that prosecutors did not prove all elements of prostitution.

In other matters, Wagner addressed and rejected the following claims:

– That he allowed hearsay evidence from a former contract employee of First Class Entertainment Services.

– That District Attorney Nancy D. Vernon engaged in prosecutorial misconduct by intimating that Teslovich had tampered with a commonwealth witness.

– That Wagner erred when he refused to charge the jury on the law in the way that Connor wanted.

While Teslovich’s appeal is pending, she remains free on bond. It will likely take several months for Superior Court to decide the matter.