Case Law Commonwealth v. Kane

Commonwealth v. Kane

Document Cited Authorities (10) Cited in (18) Related

Joshua D. Lock, Harrisburg, for appellant.

Robert M. Falin, Assistant District Attorney, Norristown, for Commonwealth, appellee.

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., OTT, J., and PLATT* , J.

OPINION BY LAZARUS, J.:

Kathleen Granahan Kane appeals from the judgment of sentence, entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, imposed following her conviction for perjury,1 false swearing in an official proceeding,2 obstructing the administration of law,3 official oppression,4 and criminal conspiracy.5 After careful review, we affirm, in part, on the basis of the trial court's well-reasoned opinion.

This matter implicates constitutional issues, the rule of law, and a fundamental tenet underlying our legal system—the truth and sanctity of testimony under oath.6

In 2016, Montgomery County District Attorney Risa V. Ferman charged former Attorney General Kane with breaking the laws she swore to uphold. Kane denied that she committed any unlawful transgressions and denounced her accusers' allegations and the subsequent investigation into her wrongdoing as infringements upon her constitutional rights. On August 17, 2016, Kane resigned the Office of the Attorney General ("OAG").

Kane's charges stem from her indiscretions in an investigation of corruption allegations against Philadelphia politicians and her futile attempt to retaliate against a perceived political foe, former Deputy Attorney General ("DAG") Frank Fina, Esquire. The trial court ably chronicled the complex facts of Kane's case, and we hereby incorporate its recitation herein by reference. See Trial Court Opinion, 3/2/17, at 4–37. For context, we include a brief summary of the facts, which follows.

On March 16, 2014, the Philadelphia Inquirer ("Inquirer") published a story entitled "Kane shut down sting that snared [Philadelphia] officials."7 The story detailed the OAG's three-year investigation of Philadelphia Democrats, including four members of the City of Philadelphia state house delegation,8 and a little-known lobbyist, Tyron B. Ali. The story, which chronicled the Ali investigation led by then DAG Fina, detailed the OAG's decision to drop fraud charges against the investigation's targets, secretly, under seal in Fall 2013. Kane regarded the Inquirer story as an attack on her and the OAG's integrity, and she suspected that Attorney Fina leaked the story to the Inquirer as retaliation for opening an internal review into his handling of the Jerry Sandusky child sexual abuse investigation. Concerned that the Criminal History Record Information Act ("CHRIA") might prohibit the OAG from publicly discussing details of the Ali investigation, Kane obtained a judicial order giving her permission to discuss limited facts about the investigation in anticipation of press inquiries.

Only three days later, on March 19, 2014, Kane learned of a long-discontinued investigation into the alleged criminal activities of Jerome Mondesire, who led the Philadelphia branch of the NAACP for 17 years. Agent Michael Miletto and DAG William Davis worked with Attorney Fina on the Mondesire investigation, which began in 2008. At some point in 2009, DAG Davis sought Attorney Fina's permission to use an existing grand jury investigating a related matter to investigate Mondesire. DAG Davis prepared a legal memorandum summarizing the allegations against Mondesire ("Davis Memo"), which Attorney Fina later reviewed; the Davis Memo contained information learned from the aforementioned grand jury proceeding. DAG Davis and Attorney Fina memorialized correspondence discussing the Davis Memo in OAG emails, and Attorney Fina endorsed DAG Davis' findings. The OAG, however, never filed charges against Mondesire.

The OAG based its allegations against Mondesire on events that occurred as early as 2004, and thus, there was a consensus among several OAG agents and attorneys that any subsequent prosecution of Mondesire was likely time-barred. However, Kane still feared that revelation of the discontinued Mondesire investigation would appear unseemly in light of the March 16, 2014 Inquirer story, and on March 22, 2014, she instructed then DAG Bruce Beemer to interview Agent Miletto to learn why the Mondesire investigation was discontinued. DAG Beemer quickly formed the legal opinion that the allegations against Mondesire were likely time barred. The time and circumstances of DAG Beemer's meeting with Agent Miletto led him to conclude the purpose of the meeting was not to determine if the OAG could still prosecute Mondesire, but to ascertain whether incompetence or corruption lay at the root of Attorney Fina's decision not to prosecute.

Following Agent Miletto's meeting with DAG Beemer, an OAG agent demanded Agent Miletto provide yet another statement regarding the Mondesire investigation. The OAG agent audio recorded Agent Miletto's statement, over his objection, and an administrative assistant transcribed it in its entirety. The OAG agent delivered the sole copy of the Miletto transcript to Kane.

The same day, Kane arranged for First Assistant Attorney General Adrian King to deliver the Davis Memo, copies of emails between Attorney Fina and Agent Miletto regarding the Davis Memo, and the Miletto transcript, to a friend and political consultant, Joshua Morrow. Kane intended for Morrow to leak the documents to the press. Eventually, Morrow redacted the documents to obscure most named persons, except Attorney Fina, and delivered them to Christopher Brennan, a reporter for the Philadelphia Daily News ("Daily News").

On June 6, 2014, the Daily News published a story entitled "A.G. Kane examining '09 review of ousted NAACP leader's finances,"9 which named Attorney Fina as the lead investigator. The Daily News story included content from the Miletto transcript and information derived from the grand jury investigation that uncovered the Mondesire allegations. Despite internal concern that the Daily News story was problematic and warranted an internal response, Kane declined to initiate an internal investigation or grand jury investigation to identify the source of the leak.

On May 8, 2014, Attorney Fina, then working as a Philadelphia Assistant District Attorney, contacted the Honorable William R. Carpenter, who was presiding over the Thirty–Fifth Statewide Grand Jury. Attorney Fina told Judge Carpenter that he received information that someone had leaked confidential grand jury information to the press and that he wished to share information relevant to the leak. Attorney Fina also suggested Judge Carpenter appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the leak. In spring 2014, Judge Carpenter determined that reasonable grounds existed to believe that an investigation was necessary to corroborate allegations that grand jury secrecy had been compromised, and appointed Thomas E. Carluccio, Esquire, to investigate and prosecute any illegal disclosures of grand jury matters.

Kane attempted to frustrate the grand jurying investigation by filing a quo warranto action10 challenging: (1) Judge Carpenter's statutory authority to appoint Attorney Carluccio as Special Prosecutor for an investigating grand jury; and (2) whether the power to investigate and prosecute was reposed solely in the executive branch. Judge Carpenter denied Kane's quo warranto action by court order dated May 29, 2014. Our Supreme Court affirmed Judge Carpenter's order denying Kane quo warranto relief on March 31, 2015. In re Thirty–Fifth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury , 631 Pa. 383, 112 A.3d 624, 637 (2015) (supervising judge of grand jury has inherent authority to appoint special prosecutor where there are colorable allegations that sanctity of grand jury has been breached by attorney for Commonwealth and that allegations warrant investigation). See also In re Dauphin County Fourth Investigating Grand Jury , 610 Pa. 296, 19 A.3d 491, 503–504 (2011) (when colorable allegations or indications that sanctity of grand jury process has been breached and those allegations warrant investigation, appointment of special prosecutor to conduct such investigation is appropriate).

In August 2014, in the midst of Special Prosecutor Carluccio's probe, Kane met with Morrow to discuss the grand jury investigation into the Mondesire leak. Morrow assured Kane that if subpoenaed by the grand jury, he would testify that he leaked the documents to the Daily News on his own initiative, and not at Kane's direction. Kane and Morrow met again in October 2014, at which time Morrow reiterated this assurance.

On November 17, 2014, Kane testified before the Thirty–Fifth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury. Kane falsely denied, numerous times, having facilitated the leak of the Mondesire investigation to the Daily News. Kane also denied knowing whether the June 6, 2014 Daily News Mondesire story was in any way related to or a response to the March 16, 2014 Inquirer story chronicling the Ali investigation. When shown the Davis Memo and accompanying documents, Kane denied having ever seen them before and denied having discussed the Mondesire investigation with Morrow. Kane also stated she had not sworn an oath of secrecy regarding the grand jury investigation that uncovered the Mondesire allegations. In response, the Commonwealth produced, among other evidence, a copy of the notarized secrecy oath she signed on her first day in office, regarding the first through thirty-second statewide investigative grand juries, including the Mondesire grand jury.

On December 19, 2014, the Thirty–Fifth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury issued a presentment recommending that the Commonwealth charge Kane with perjury, false swearing, abuse of office/official oppression, obstructing the administration of law or other governmental function, and contempt of court. The same day, Judge Carpenter, by court order, accepted the presentment. On August 6,...

5 cases
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit – 2018
United States v. Walters
"... ... defense lawyer, for contempt, making a false declaration, and obstruction of justice for leaking grand jury information to the press); Commonwealth v. Kane , 188 A.3d 1217, 1221-25 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018) (affirming conviction of state attorney general, who was sentenced to 10 to 23 months’ ... "
Document | Pennsylvania Superior Court – 2022
Commonwealth v. Forrester-Westad
"... ... Commonwealth v. Kane , 188 A.3d 1217, 1227 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citations, original brackets, and quotation marks omitted), appeal denied , 649 Pa. 652, 197 A.3d 1180 (2018). Part I – Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea We begin with a discussion of the fundamental constitutional principles of the right to counsel and ... "
Document | Pennsylvania Superior Court – 2023
Commonwealth v. Tucker
"... ... 402 ... "The court may exclude relevant evidence if its ... probative value is outweighed by a danger of ... unfair ... prejudice, confusing the issues, [or] misleading the ... jury[.]" Pa.R.E. 403 ... Commonwealth v. Kane , 188 A.3d 1217, 1228 (Pa.Super ... 2018), appeal denied , 649 Pa. 652, 197 A.3d ... 1180 (2018) (brackets in original) ...          Here, ... after the court denied counsel's request to take judicial ... notice of the facts summarized in the Henry ... "
Document | Pennsylvania Superior Court – 2022
Commonwealth v. Renninger
"... ... at 4, citing Commonwealth v. Kane , 188 A.3d 1217, 1227 (Pa. Super. 2018), appeal denied , 649 Pa. 652, 197 A.3d 1180 (2018). In Devlin , supra , our Supreme Court held that due process requires the Commonwealth to fix the date of the commission of the offense with reasonable certainty. Devlin , 333 A.2d at 890. There, ... "
Document | Pennsylvania Superior Court – 2020
Commonwealth v. Distefano
"... ... The admission of evidence is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and our review is for an abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Kane , 188 A.3d 1217, 1229 (Pa.Super. 2018) (quoting Commonwealth v. Stokes , 78 A.3d 644, 654 (Pa. Super. 2013) (some citations omitted)). Specifically, the Commonwealth argues that the trial court abused its discretion in finding any evidence relevant to the causation of the victim's death was ... "

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit – 2018
United States v. Walters
"... ... defense lawyer, for contempt, making a false declaration, and obstruction of justice for leaking grand jury information to the press); Commonwealth v. Kane , 188 A.3d 1217, 1221-25 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018) (affirming conviction of state attorney general, who was sentenced to 10 to 23 months’ ... "
Document | Pennsylvania Superior Court – 2022
Commonwealth v. Forrester-Westad
"... ... Commonwealth v. Kane , 188 A.3d 1217, 1227 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citations, original brackets, and quotation marks omitted), appeal denied , 649 Pa. 652, 197 A.3d 1180 (2018). Part I – Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea We begin with a discussion of the fundamental constitutional principles of the right to counsel and ... "
Document | Pennsylvania Superior Court – 2023
Commonwealth v. Tucker
"... ... 402 ... "The court may exclude relevant evidence if its ... probative value is outweighed by a danger of ... unfair ... prejudice, confusing the issues, [or] misleading the ... jury[.]" Pa.R.E. 403 ... Commonwealth v. Kane , 188 A.3d 1217, 1228 (Pa.Super ... 2018), appeal denied , 649 Pa. 652, 197 A.3d ... 1180 (2018) (brackets in original) ...          Here, ... after the court denied counsel's request to take judicial ... notice of the facts summarized in the Henry ... "
Document | Pennsylvania Superior Court – 2022
Commonwealth v. Renninger
"... ... at 4, citing Commonwealth v. Kane , 188 A.3d 1217, 1227 (Pa. Super. 2018), appeal denied , 649 Pa. 652, 197 A.3d 1180 (2018). In Devlin , supra , our Supreme Court held that due process requires the Commonwealth to fix the date of the commission of the offense with reasonable certainty. Devlin , 333 A.2d at 890. There, ... "
Document | Pennsylvania Superior Court – 2020
Commonwealth v. Distefano
"... ... The admission of evidence is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and our review is for an abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Kane , 188 A.3d 1217, 1229 (Pa.Super. 2018) (quoting Commonwealth v. Stokes , 78 A.3d 644, 654 (Pa. Super. 2013) (some citations omitted)). Specifically, the Commonwealth argues that the trial court abused its discretion in finding any evidence relevant to the causation of the victim's death was ... "

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex