Judge denies motion to remove DA’s office from homicide case
A Fayette County judge has denied a request from an North Union Township man’s attorney to have the district attorney’s office removed from prosecuting the man’s capital murder case.
President Judge John F. Wagner Jr. handed down the order on Friday, explaining that the rules of professional conduct state that one prosecutor’s alleged conflict of interest in the case of homicide defendant Henry Crawford does not impute a conflict of interest for the entire office.
Crawford, 57, faces trial for homicide and burglary charges stemming from the alleged January 2013 fatal stabbing of 49-year-old Lisa Tupta in her North Union Township home. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty if jurors find Crawford guilty of first-degree murder.
In a motion filed Tuesday, Crawford’s attorney, Public Defender Jeffrey Whiteko claimed Assistant District Attorney Michelle Kelley’s personal relationship with Tupta’s family clouded her ability to seek justice in the case, and may have influenced the decision to pursue the death penalty. He argued that the appearance of impropriety generated by that alleged relationship should compel the judge to remove the entire district attorney’s office from handling the case.
Following the denial of his motion to remove all county prosecutors from the case, Whiteko indicated he believes Kelley will not be able to continue working on it.
“My interpretation is that President Judge Wagner strongly recommended that Michelle Kelley be removed,” said Whiteko.
Kelley said Whiteko’s allegation that the prosecution was politically motivated is “completely contrived.” Kelley noted that she consulted, and received both an oral and written opinion from, the state Bar Association Ethics Committee indicating that knowing Tupta’s sister does not constitute a conflict of interest with her prosecuting Crawford.
“There is no basis in fact to claim that political motivation played any part in any prosecutorial decision in this matter,” she said in a release issued Friday. “This claim is the most disingenuous attempt to prejudice a Commonwealth case that I have ever seen. As prosecutors, we try our cases in a court of law, not in the newspaper, and refrain at all times from seeking attention-grabbing headlines that we cannot support with facts.”
Kelley also called Whiteko’s allegations that prosecutors arrived at the decision to seek the death penalty quickly, and that she had an emotional bond with the family, “baseless”.
According to Kelley, she first contacted the Ethics Committee on approximately Aug. 20 to inquire as to whether her participation in the case created a conflict of interest.
“On (Thursday), I received a formal written opinion from the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Ethics Committee concluding that ‘you do not have a conflict in representing the Commonwealth in prosecuting the defendant,'” wrote Kelley.
Whiteko questioned why she opted to contact the state Bar Association to address the potential conflict of interest.
“I understand she contacted the Pennsylvania Bar — I ask why she did not contact the Disciplinary Board for an interpretation (of the rules of professional conduct), or the Attorney General’s office directly?” said Whiteko.
The Disciplinary Board is an entity within the state Supreme Court which maintains exclusive jurisdiction over all matters of attorney discipline in Pennsylvania and enforces the rules of professional conduct.
According to Kelley’s statement, she believes she is not in violation of the rules of conduct. She concluded by calling Whiteko’s motion “a vain attempt to impugn the integrity of the Fayette County District Attorney’s office.”