Feudale Email Exposes Beemer, Others

AG First Deputy, Bruce Beemer's claim that Kane's conduct in releasing private emails was unethical seemingly pales in comparison to other potential misconduct in the case of the PSU 3.  

By
Ray Blehar

In a memo to top attorneys in the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office (OAG), Bruce Beemer alleged that AG Kathleen Kane had conducted herself unethically for producing the so-called "private emails" of former (bumbling) grand jury judge, Barry Feudale.

In what should come as no surprise to anyone who has closely followed this case, Beemer has his own ethical issues regarding his handling of evidence in the cases of the PSU 3 (i.e., Timothy Curley, Gary Schultz, and Graham Spanier).

And what also should come as no surprise, the evidence involves emails.

Spanier Discovery Request

On September 9, 2014, counsel for Spanier joined a motion by the attorneys for Curley and Schultz requesting discovery of emails between Feudale and Fina regarding his removal as grand jury judge AND any correspondence about the Conspiracy of Silence case.   See below.

On September 9, 2014, the Commonwealth responded and clarified that First Deputy Attorney Bruce Beemer was the "lead prosecutor" since the filing of charges on November 1st, 2012.  Prior to the filing of charges, Senior Deputy Attorney General Jonelle Eshbach was the lead prosecutor on the case and was supervised by Chief Deputy Attorney General Frank G. Fina.

The Spanier filing also revealed the Beemer was instrumental in directing the searches for emails and in responding to requests of the status of the discovery.

3/545 = Playing "hide the ball"

Bruce Beemer:  Kept
playing"hide the ball?"

The Commonwealth's response stated it found 545 emails related to the search terms provided by the defendants and that the majority of the emails dealt with case logistics. Only three dealt with matters that were material to the case.

The "material" emails were from December 16 and 17, 2011 and referenced expanded Information Technology (IT) evidence collection  to be conducted by the PSU IT staff for hard drives, portable devices, and copies of emails from persons of interest.

When the Spanier defense team stated it "strained credulity" that only three emails were found, the OAG indignantly responded that the case prosecutors had been "forthright, cooperative, and direct" and that it "strained credulity" for them to be accused of playing "hide the ball."  

As reported in early 2014, substantial evidence in the case showed that the prosecutors had been playing "hide the ball" all along.  

The Feudale emails simply added to the existing mountain of evidence that has been suppressed in the case of the PSU 3.

Feudale Email

The July 18, 2013 email from Judge Barry Feudale to the Inky's Craig R. McCoy revealed that his email to Frank Fina regarding his removal as judge contained grand jury information.  Given that the email included various rants about AG Kathleen Kane over his removal -- and that Kane had stirred the hornet's nest with the Mouton investigation - there is little doubt it referenced the Sandusky and/or Conspiracy of Silence grand jury.   See below.

AG Kane told reporters that Feudale mistakenly sent emails to Fina at his old email address in the OAG's office and those emails resided on OAG servers.  Feudale's emails were discovered after his removal as a grand jury judge in July of 2013 -- uncovered during the investigation of the Sandusky investigation, conducted by Special Deputy AG, Geoffrey Moulton.  The Moulton Report revealed that emails from the OAG accounts were recovered beginning in November 2013 and continuing into March 2014.

In summary, the OAG's attorneys, including Beemer, Laura Ditka, and James Barker deceived the legal teams of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier regarding the existence of email evidence.

It is extremely rich that Bruce Beemer wrote a memo accusing AG Kathleen Kane of unethical conduct regarding the release of Feudale's so-called "private emails," given his possible misconduct in the PSU 3 case.

Duke Redeaux

Former Durham County, North Carolina, District Attorney Mike Nifong was disbarred for similar misrepresentations to opposing counsel and the court in the Duke Lacrosse case.  

Findings:

94. On December 13, 2006, the Duke Defendants filed a Motion to Compel Discovery: Expert DNA Analysis, detailing their discovery of the existence of DNA from multiple unidentified males on the rape kit items and explaining that this evidence had not been included DSI's written report.  The motion did not allege any attempt or agreement to conceal the potentially exculpatory DNA evidence or test results.   The Motion to Compel Discovery: Expert DNA Analysis was addressed by the Honorable Osmond W. Smith III, Superior Court Judge presiding, at a hearing on December 15, 2006.

95. At the December 15 hearing, both in chambers and again in open court, Nifong stated or implied to Judge Smith that he was unaware of the existence of DNA from multiple unidentified males on the rape kit items until he received the December 13 motion and/or was unaware that the results of any DNA testing performed by DSI had been excluded from DSI's written report.  Nifong stated to Judge Smith in open court:  "The first I heard of this particular situation was when I was served with these reports -- this motion on Wednesday of this week."

96. Nifong's representations that he was unaware of the existence of DNA from multiple unidentified males on the rape kit items and/or that he was unaware of the exclusion of such evidence from DSI's written report, were intentional misrepresentations and intentional false statements of material fact to the Court and to opposing counsel.

Violations of the Code of Ethics

(c) By not providing to the Duke Defendants prior to November 16, 2006, a complete report setting forth the results of all tests and examinations conducted by DSI, including the existence of DNA from multiple unidentified males on the rape kit items and including written or recorded memorializations of Dr. Meehan's oral statements, Nifong:

ii. failed to make a reasonably diligent effort to comply with a legally proper discovery request, in violation of former Rule 3.4(d) of the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct;  

(d) By never providing the Duke Defendants on or after November 16, 2006, and prior to his recusal on January 12, 2007, a report setting forth the results of all tests or examinations conducted by DSI, including the existence of DNA from multiple unidentified males on the rape kit items and including written or recorded memorializations of Dr. Meehan's oral statements, Nifong:

ii. failed to disclose evidence or information that he knew, or reasonably should have known, was subject to disclosure under applicable law, rules of procedure or evidence, or court opinions, in violation of current Rule 3.4(d)(3) of the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct. 

(e) By falsely representing to the Court and to counsel for the Duke Defendants that he had provided all discoverable material in his possession and that the substance of all Dr. Meehan's oral statements to him concerning the results of all examinations and tests conducted by DSI were included in DSI's written report, Nifong made false statements of material fact or law to a tribunal in violation of Rule 3.3(a)(1), made false statements of material fact to a third person in the course of representing a client in violation of Rule 4.1, and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct.

(f) By representing or implying to the Court that he was not aware of the existence on rape kit items of DNA from multiple unidentified males who were not members of the lacrosse team and/or that he was not aware of the exclusion of that evidence from DSI's written report at the beginning of the December 15, 2006, hearing, Nifong made false statements of material fact or law to a tribunal in violation of Rule 3.3(a)(1) and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct.

Media Defends Corruption

"Duke Lacrosse on Steroids" is an apt description of the Sandusky and Conspiracy of Silence cases because the degree of possible misconduct and the number of players who were likely involved.

Judges, prosecutors, and politicians all have taken part in abusing the so-called system of justice in the Commonwealth.

AG Kathleen Kane, who made good on her promise to investigate the Sandusky investigation, likely had no idea what Fina, Feudale, Beemer, and others feared her investigation would uncover about their misconduct -- and it wasn't pornography.

The media, who should be a watch dog to root out corruption, continues to be a lap dog of the corrupt. Instead of recognizing how officers of the court have compromised the system of justice, it has aligned itself with them.  

To make an analogy, instead of being against the "crack dealers" who sell drugs to children, it has turned against the "undercover cops" who identified them.  As for the children, the media is content to leave them to fend for themselves.

Kane and the corrupt are now engaged in a scorched earth policy in which few will be left unscathed.

Unfortunately, those among the scorched will be every citizen of the Commonwealth who will have the unfortunate circumstance to be abused by this corrupt system of justice.