A federal appeals court has ruled that former Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas Judge Mark Ciavarella is entitled to a new trial on three vacated convictions for racketeering, racketeering conspiracy and money laundering conspiracy, but rejected his attempt to rely on precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court's 2016 ruling in McDonnell v. United States.

Ciavarella was sentenced in 2011 to 27 years' imprisonment for accepting $2.8 million in kickbacks, along with fellow Judge Michael Conahan, from the builder and former co-owner of a private juvenile detention facility.

When Ciavarella initially appealed his sentence to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, he leveled numerous challenges to the conduct of U.S. District Judge Edwin Kosik of the Middle District of Pennsylvania, who oversaw his trial, and alleged various trial and sentencing errors.

The Third Circuit rejected those arguments—though it did vacate his conviction on one count of mail fraud—and the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately declined to take up his case in 2014.

Ciavarella, however, began pursuing a new avenue of appeal in 2017, filing a habeas petition that sought to rely in part on the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling in McDonnell v. United States. In that case, the high court overturned former Virginia Gov. Robert McDonnell's bribery conviction, narrowing the definition of what constitutes an "official act" done for payment or a favor.

Ciavarella also argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue and preserve a statute of limitations defense with regard to several of the charges against him, including those for racketeering, racketeering conspiracy and money laundering conspiracy.

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania vacated Ciavarella's convictions on one count each of racketeering, racketeering conspiracy and money laundering conspiracy, ordering a new trial with a statute of limitations jury instruction to determine whether the racketeering and money laundering conspiracy convictions were based on conduct that fell within the five-year statute of limitations.

"To find Ciavarella guilty of RICO, RICO conspiracy, and money laundering conspiracy in the face of an appropriate statute of limitations instruction, the jury would have to find that the respective conspiracies continued into the limitations period," Middle District Judge Christopher Conner wrote. "In other words, the government would need to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that its September 9, 2009 indictment was 'brought within five years of the last overt act' in furtherance of the conspiracies. If the jury resolved that the conspiracies concluded before September 9, 2004, it would be required to acquit Ciavarella on Counts 1, 2, and 21. The jury‟s verdict constrains us to find that an appropriate limitations instruction may have altered the outcome of these proceedings."

But the trial court rejected the McDowell argument and upheld the remaining convictions.

The Third Circuit affirmed that ruling in full.

Judge Thomas Ambro wrote in the appeals court's March 29 opinion that a new trial with a statute of limitations jury instruction was warranted for the three vacated convictions.

"We cannot say for certain whether the jury believed that the racketeering and money-laundering conspiracies ended before September 2004," Ambro said. "But such a belief seems 'reasonably probable' in light of the jury's acquittal on all kickbacks after 2003."

But Ambro also agreed with the lower court that McDonnell-specific jury instructions were not warranted.

"Ciavarella's counsel failed to preserve this claim by challenging the jury instructions at trial, and Ciavarella cannot provide any reason to excuse this procedural default," Ambro said. "In particular, it is no excuse that he was convicted before McDonnell was decided. Although 'subsequent legal developments have made counsel's task easier,' a McDonnell-style challenge was 'available' at the time of Ciavarella's conviction."

Ambro added, "Second, Ciavarella's bribery-related actions still satisfy even a post-McDonnell understanding of 'official act.' If sentencing hundreds of juvenile offenders to excessive terms of incarceration is not an 'official act,' then nothing is."

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and Ciavarella's attorney, Jennifer P. Wilson, did not respond to requests for comment.

The McDonnell decision, in which the high court overturned former Virginia Gov. Robert McDonnell's bribery conviction, was handed down while Ciavarella was in his fifth year of federal incarceration.

Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., writing for the court in McDonnell, said the justices were adopting a more "bounded interpretation" of "official acts" than what prosecutors had advocated. The court sent the case back to the trial judge to decide whether there was enough evidence that McDonnell's conduct fell under the new definition of "official acts." If so, the judge could order a new trial. If not, the charges will be dismissed.

The ex-governor, a Republican, was sentenced in 2014 to two years in prison on charges he took "official acts" in exchange for more than $175,000 in gifts and cash from Virginia businessman Jonnie Williams Sr. McDonnell was accused of using his office to promote Williams' company.

"There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that. But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes and ball gowns," Roberts wrote. "It is instead with the broader legal implications of the government's boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute."

Prosecutors' interpretation of official acts was overbroad, the court said.

"Officials might wonder whether they could respond to even the most commonplace requests for assistance, and citizens with legitimate concerns might shrink from participating in democratic discourse," Roberts wrote.