Interesting example of prosecutorial discretion

The Philadelphia Inquirer has been fed the goods on a very interesting tale of prosecutorial discretion:

“The Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office ran an undercover sting operation over three years that captured leading Philadelphia Democrats, including four members of the city’s state House delegation, on tape accepting money, The Inquirer has learned.

Yet no one was charged with a crime.

Prosecutors began the sting in 2010 when Republican Tom Corbett was attorney general. After Democrat Kathleen G. Kane took office in 2013, she shut it down.

In a statement to The Inquirer on Friday, Kane called the investigation poorly conceived, badly managed, and tainted by racism, saying it had targeted African Americans.”

There’s obviously much more here than meets the eye, including a fight between Kane and Frank Fina, who had led the state’s investigation into the Sandusky mess, and a further fight between Kane and much of Pennsylvania’s governing class.  But the details are sordid:

Before Kane ended the investigation, sources familiar with the inquiry said, prosecutors amassed 400 hours of audio and videotape that documented at least four city Democrats taking payments in cash or money orders, and in one case a $2,000 Tiffany bracelet.

Typically, the payments made at any one time were relatively modest – ranging from $500 to $2,000 – but most of those involved accepted multiple payments, people familiar with the investigation said. In some cases, the payments were offered in exchange for votes or contracts, they said.

Sources with knowledge of the sting said the investigation made financial pitches to both Republicans and Democrats, but only Democrats accepted the payments.

In explaining the decision to close the sting investigation without filing charges, Kane said one reason was that prosecutors in the case had issued orders to target “only members of the General Assembly’s Black Caucus” and to ignore “potentially illegal acts by white members of the General Assembly.”

The Inky’s reporting on this case is incredibly deep, even though it seems evidently based in leaks by someone who hates the Attorney General and wants everyone to know it.  Certainly worth reading.

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. Brett Bellmore says:

    ” Kane said one reason was that prosecutors in the case had issued orders to target “only members of the General Assembly’s Black Caucus” and to ignore “potentially illegal acts by white members of the General Assembly.””

    Just keep in mind that this assertion comes from a prosecutor who had iron clad evidence of crimes by politicians of her own party, and refused to prosecute. Just to put this in context.

  2. Dave Hoffman says:

    Brett,
    Was that context somehow missing? I thought that’s what makes the story interesting. As for “iron clad,” if you read the article I think you’ll see that two other prosecutors (EDPA USAO and a state republican) also passed, apparently worried about entrapment.

  3. Awesome blog. I enjoyed reading your articles. This is truly a great read for me. I have bookmarked it and I am looking forward to reading new articles. Keep up the good work!