Graham Spanier Complaint Accuses Frank Fina of “Blatant Violation” of Spanier’s Attorney-Client Privilege

Share With Friends

From the Legal Intelligencer’s report on former Penn State President Graham Spanier’s lawsuit against Kathleen Kane, which tries to get the charges against him dropped:

The complaint focuses on Fina’s actions during the grand jury testimony sessions of Spanier and former university attorney Cynthia Baldwin.

The complaint also alleges that, although Spanier had told a grand jury that he was represented by Baldwin before he testified in the April 2011 grand jury proceedings related to Sandusky’s prosecution, Fina had heard Baldwin tell the supervising grand jury judge that she did not represent Spanier, but only the university.

“Fina said nothing to correct Spanier’s statement and thereby to alert Spanier to the fact that Baldwin was not serving as his lawyer, but instead continued his questioning of Spanier,” the complaint said. “The perjury charge that Fina based on that testimony is thus based on Fina’s deception, both of Spanier and of the supervising grand jury judge, and on Fina’s blatant violation of Spanier’s attorney-client privilege.”

Not being a lawyer, I’ll refrain from opining on the merits of Spanier’s argument, but every day that we hear about Frank Fina’s sloppy work is a good day for Kathleen Kane’s side of the #blingsting story.

Before long, the conventional wisdom will be that Fina botched the Sandusky case, and he botched the bling sting, and he’s just taking preemptive shots at Kane to try to contain the damage to Tom Corbett’s reelection prospects from the Sandusky probe’s revelations.

This entry was posted in Ethics, Governor.

2 Responses to Graham Spanier Complaint Accuses Frank Fina of “Blatant Violation” of Spanier’s Attorney-Client Privilege

  1. Anon says:

    Rule 231 (a) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure is clear: The attorney for the Commonwealth, the alternate grand jurors, the witness under examination, and a stenographer may be present while the grand jury is in session. Counsel for the witness under examination may be present as provided by law.

  2. Pingback: 4/2 Morning Buzz | PoliticsPA