Montco judge nixes Kane's request to dismiss criminal case
A Montgomery County judge has denied Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen G. Kane's request to dismiss the criminal charges against her and has also rejected Kane's request that she step aside in favor of a judge from another county.
A Montgomery County judge has denied Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen G. Kane's request to dismiss the criminal charges against her and has also rejected Kane's request that she step aside in favor of a judge from another county.
Judge Wendy Demchick-Alloy agreed with prosecutors that Kane can receive a fair trial in Montgomery County and that the attorney general's case can proceed as scheduled, according to a decision made public Tuesday.
Earlier this month, Kane filed legal papers requesting that a judge from outside the county be appointed to preside over her criminal trial, scheduled to begin Aug. 8.
Kane had alleged that three judges on the Montgomery County bench are hostile to her and have a "clear interest" in the outcome of her case. As a consequence, she said, the county's 22 judges should disqualify themselves.
Kane had also argued that the case against her should be tossed out of court because the initial investigation into her actions was unconstitutional. That inquiry was led by a special prosecutor, who later referred his findings to the Montgomery County District Attorney's Office. Kane had previously made that argument to the state Supreme Court, which rejected it.
Kane, 49, is charged with perjury, conspiracy, official oppression, and other crimes for allegedly leaking confidential information about an old investigation led by a former state prosecutor with whom she was feuding.
Prosecutors say that in the spring of 2014, Kane leaked confidential information to the Daily News because it was critical of the prosecutor, Frank Fina, whom she blamed for negative news coverage she was receiving at the time.
Kane has pleaded not guilty and has said she believes the charges against her were "corruptly manufactured" by angry Republican men seeking to prevent her from exposing that, under her GOP predecessors, her office's computers had been used as a hub for the exchange of pornographic and offensive emails.
Demchick-Alloy did not rule on one other motion from Kane - her request for permission to file legal documents under seal to argue that she is the "victim of selective and vindictive prosecution."
Kane's lawyers have told Demchick-Alloy that they and Kane might be held in contempt by another judge if such a motion were to be filed publicly.
Several news organizations, including the parent company of the Inquirer, Daily News, and Philly.com, have urged Demchick-Alloy to deny Kane's request.
717-787-5934
@AngelasInk