Appeals Court Removes Pittsburgh Judge From Case, Citing 'Bias' and 'Personal Animus'
The Superior Court said Allegheny County Judge Donna Jo McDaniel failed to follow the appellate court's instructions when the case was initially remanded in 2016, and instead violated the defendant's constitutional rights by failing to properly re-sentence him.
November 29, 2018 at 03:27 PM
4 minute read
Making a “veiled threat” to a defendant's attorney and filling an opinion with “gratuitous” and “denigrating comments” was just some of the conduct that the Pennsylvania Superior Court pointed to in removing an Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas judge from a criminal case that the judge allegedly failed to properly handle.
The Superior Court said Allegheny County Judge Donna Jo McDaniel failed to follow the appellate court's instructions when the case was initially remanded in 2016, and instead violated the defendant's constitutional rights by failing to properly re-sentence him.
A secretary at the judge's chambers said McDaniel had no comment about the Superior Court's ruling.
“Because the trial court continually refuses to follow mandates from Superior Court that require a sentencing hearing that meets statutory and constitutional requirements, Superior Court has had to remand several cases multiple times,” Superior Court Judge Alice Beck Dubow, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, said. “This has resulted in extensive deployment of judicial resources to review, analyze, and rectify the court's deficient sentencing hearings. We must now provide a substantial remedy.”
That remedy, outlined in the opinion the Superior Court issued Wednesday in Commonwealth v. McCauley, entailed vacating the defendant's sentence, granting the defendant's motion to recuse McDaniel and remanding the case to Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas President Judge Jeffrey Manning so it could be reassigned to another judge.
McDaniel became a judge in 1985 and served as Allegheny's president judge from 2008 until 2013.
The underlying case involves a man who was sentenced in 2014 to 20 to 40 years after being convicted of sexual abuse of a minor under 13. After the defendant, Anthony McCauley, challenged the legality of imposing a mandatory minimum sentence, the Superior Court affirmed the conviction, but vacated the sentence.
According to Dubow, the prior Superior Court panel remanded the case for further review. The instructions, according to Dubow, were that if McCauley's sentence had not been based on the mandatory minimum statute, which has been struck down as unconstitutional, then McDaniel could re-impose the same sentence, but if McDaniel had based the sentence on the mandatory minimum statute, she would then need to re-sentence him.
Dubow said McDaniel did neither, and instead conducted a “brief and inadequate resentencing hearing,” which spurred the latest appeal.
According to Dubow, this was not the first case that was remanded to McDaniel because of sentencing problems stemming from a case involving a sex offender. Dubow noted that the court also reversed her sentences in the cases Commonwealth v. Bernal in 2016 and Commonwealth v. A.S. in 2017.
In both cases, Dubow said, the Superior Court included footnotes that said the appellate court was “troubled with the trial judge's biased decision-making process and inability to impose individualized sentences for sex offenders.”
According to Dubow, that history provided context for the appellate court's determination that McDaniel “demonstrated bias and personal animus against [McCauley's] counsel and the Public Defender's Office.”
In McCauley's case, that took the form of making “gratuitous comments denigrating” McCauley's counsel and the Public Defender's Office, as well as “disparag[ing]” defense counsel and accusing the defense of having been part of a coordinate effort with attorneys from Bernal and A.S. to attack her sentencing decisions, Dubow said. Dubow also said the Superior Court was troubled by McDaniel's sarcasm, which she said was “disrespectful to [McCauley], counsel, and the seriousness of the sentencing process.”
“The trial court's animus and hostility to appellant's counsel and the Public Defender's Office appears to be deep, unwavering, and demonstrates an unjustified bias,” Dubow said.
Neither the Allegheny County District Attorney's Office, nor the Allegheny County Office of the Public Defender returned a call seeking comment. Manning also did not return a call seeking comment Thursday morning.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Recover, Reflect, Retool and Retry': Lessons From Women Atop Pa. Legal Community
3 minute readEDPA's New Chief Judge Plans to Advance Efforts to Combat Threats to Judiciary
3 minute readPa. Superior Court's Next Leader Looks Ahead to Looming Challenges in Coming Years
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Womans Suit Alleging Negligence to Sex Trafficking by Hotel Tossed by Federal Judge
- 2Dog Gone It, Target: Provider of Retailer's Mascot Dog Sues Over Contract Cancellation
- 3Lululemon Faces Legal Fire Over Its DEI Program After Bias Complaints Surface
- 4Plaintiff Gets $500K Policy Limit Without Surgery
- 5Philadelphia Bar Association Executive Director Announces Retirement
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250