Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:20, 29 May 2008

Mary Beth Buchanan, birth name "Mary Beth Kotcella," (born July 25, 1963), a United States Republican attorney. She is currently the United States Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania. She was appointed by George W. Bush on September 5, 2001, and confirmed by the United States Senate on September 14, 2001. Ms. Buchanan is the first woman in Pennsylvania's history to be Presidentially appointed to this position and has been viewed as one of the most controversial US Attorneys in the history of Pennsylvania.

Personal

Buchanan is a native of Roscoe, Pennsylvania. She is a 1984 graduate of California University of Pennsylvania, and a 1987 graduate of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. Her second husband, Thomas C. Buchanan, is the grandson of the founder of the Buchanan Ingersoll law firm. The firm, in which he is a partner, is now called Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney.

She lives in Fox Chapel, Pennsylvania, a suburb of Pittsburgh, with her husband.

Career

Law practice

Strassburger McKenna Gutnick & Potter (1987)

Mary Beth Buchanan worked as an associate at Strassburger McKenna Gutnick & Potter after her 1987 law school graduation.

Federal Appointments

Assistant U.S. Attorney (1988 - 2001)

She joined the U.S. Attorney's Office as an Assistant US Attorney in 1988. From 1988 to 1992, Mary Beth Buchanan served in the Civil Division of the United States Attorney's Office. From 1992 until her appointment to US Attorney, Mary Beth Buchanan served in the Criminal Division of the United States Attorney’s Office, representing the United States. In September of 2001, Mary Beth Buchanan was appointed to the position of US Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

U. S. Attorney for Western District of Pennsylvania (2001 - Present)

Buchanan has been the United States Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania since 2001. She was appointed by George W. Bush on September 5, 2001, and confirmed by the United States Senate on September 14, 2001.

While Mary Beth Buchanan has been appointed to the position of US Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania, she also has been appointed to multiple positions within the Department of Justice. These appointments have been as follows:

Chair of Advisory Committee of United States Attorneys (2003 - 2004)

Between April 2003 and May 2004, Ms. Buchanan served as chair of Attorney General John Ashcroft's Advisory Committee of United States Attorneys. This Committee counsels the Attorney General on law enforcement issues and plays an integral role in setting Department of Justice policy.

Advisory Committee to the United States Sentencing Commission (2002 - 2004)

From February 2002 to 2004, she served on an Advisory Committee to the United States Sentencing Commission, which was established to study the effectiveness of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for organizations.

Executive Office for The United States Attorneys (2004 - 2005)

From June 2004 until June 2005, Mary Beth Buchanan served as the Director of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys. This Washington D.C.-based office provides administrative support to the 94 United States Attorneys' Offices nationwide. Ms. Buchanan oversaw this post at the start of the period that relates to the Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy.

Acting Director for the Department of Justice's Office on Violence Against Women (2006 - 2007)

From November 2006 through December 2007, Ms. Buchanan served as the Acting Director for the Department of Justice's Office on Violence Against Women. This Office, based in Washington, DC, administers financial and technical assistance to communities nationwide that are creating programs, policies and practices aimed at ending domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking, and provides leadership in developing the nation's capacity to reduce violence against women through implementation of the Violence Against Women Act.

Controversial Cases

United States vs. Tommy Chong (2003)

Mary Beth Buchanan oversaw Operation Pipe Dream which was a $12 million dollar law enforcement operation targeted at individuals selling water bongs and other drug paraphernalia online. The investigation resulted in 55 individuals being charged. One of these 55 individuals was Tommy Chong. Tommy Chong was charged for his part in financing and promoting Chong Glass/Nice Dreams, a company started by his son Paris. Mr. Chong’s case never went through a federal trial; instead Mr. Chong came to a settlement with US Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan’s office in which he admitted to distributing 7,500 bongs and water pipes on the Internet through Nice Dreams, a family company that was named for one of his movies. Of the 55 individuals charged through the investigation, Tommy Chong was the only individual without a prior criminal history that received jail time.

The fact that Mr. Chong received jail time for his offense, the tactics utilized by the DEA agents during the investigation, and the fact the investigation focused on Tommy Chong opposed to the company's CEO, Paris Chong, has raised concern from critics that the prosecution was selective in nature. When asked why the government had focused on Tommy Chong opposed to the company’s CEO, Paris, US Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan responded that “Tommy Chong was the more responsible corporate officer because he financed and marketed the product.” When question on the disparity between sentences/fines that the other 54 individuals received compared to Mr. Chong, US Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan stated, "He (Tommy Chong) wasn't the biggest supplier. He was a relatively new player, but he had the ability to market products like no other."

After serving 9 months, Tommy Chong was released from federal prison and has been an avid critic of the prosecution in his case. In 2006, Chong wrote a book about his experiences in jail and his interest in meditation, called The I Chong: Meditations From The Joint (ISBN 1-4169-1554-0). There was also a documentary film chronicling the Drug Enforcement Administration raid on comedian Tommy Chong's house and his subsequent jail sentence for trafficking in illegal drug paraphernalia entitled a/k/a Tommy Chong. Tommy Chong has stated publicly that he has no ownership in the film.

On May 7th, 2008, federal agents raided Spectrum Labs on an investigation related to Spectrum Labs’ detoxication products. The raid, one of nine during the day, was part of Operation True Test, an investigation being led by U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan. The investigation targeted companies that sell "masking products" that are supposed to help drug-users pass employer drug tests. Of the nine search warrants issued, none were for businesses within Mary Beth Buchanan's district, the Western District of Pennsylvania.

In executing their search warrant, the federal agents seized over 10,000 copies of Tommy Chong’s yet to be released documentary, a/k/a Tommy Chong. It has yet to be determined exactly why the DVDs were seized during the raid. Tommy Chong has speculated that the seizure may rest with prohibitions against one benefiting financially from a crime; however Mr. Chong has not released publicly that he has been charged with such an offense. In a statement released to the press, Tommy Chong stated "It's (the seizure of the DVDs) a way to punish the distributor financially. There's no way to get the DVDs back until the investigation is over." Mr. Chong also stated that he has no ownership in the film, a/k/a Tommy Chong.

United States vs. Karen Fletcher (2006)

Karen Fletcher of Donora, PA, was indicted on six charged of distributing obscene materials over the Internet. The fictional text stories featured detailed fictional accounts of the molesting, torture and sometimes gruesome murders of children under the age of 10, mostly girls. Unlike typical obscenity cases, though, Karen Fletcher was charged with violating the law through simple writing, and not with pictures or movies.

Ms. Fletcher ran what was known as the "Red Rose" Web site, where she posted her fictional stories. In order to prevent minors and others from accessing the site improperly, Ms. Fletcher charged members a $10 monthly fee to have access to the site. At the time of the indictment, there were only 29 members to the site. No other member to the site was charged within the indictment.

In affidavits, Karen Fletcher wrote that she has almost no memory of her childhood up until the age of 14. She explained that her writing started out just for her and was cathartic because she had been sexually abused as a child. “At first I would capture a particular feeling of dread and try to weave it into a scenario that explained the feeling," she wrote. Ms. Fletcher described what she called her "monsters:"

"I have always been afraid of monsters. The monsters in my life had always been real; for too long they were always there with unlimited access to me, and I was helpless to do anything about it. In my stories, I have created new monsters. rise above the horror of the real life monsters. Somehow, making these monsters so much worse makes me feel better, and makes my life seem more bearable. I may still be afraid of the monsters, but at least in the stories, they prey on someone else, not me."

Ms. Fletcher’s lawyers argued in pretrial court proceedings that their client was not guilty of the charges. Their arguments were based on a viewpoint that the stories written by Ms. Fletcher did not meet the legal definition of obscenity. The legal definition of obscenity embraces both "description," as in text, and "depiction," as in images, stated one of Ms. Flether’s lawyers.

In one of their brief, the defense argued that Ms. Fletcher’s stories, however lurid, were comparable to many scenes found in literature and television. The novel “A Clockwork Orange,” by Anthony Burgess, and episodes of the cartoon show “South Park” were cited as such examples. The defense also cited a scene in a novel by I. Lewis Libby Jr., the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, in which a 10-year-old girl is placed in a cage with a bear who forces himself upon her sexually to habituate her to sexual submission. The lawyers argued that Ms. Fletcher’s stories were no more lurid than the novel by Mr. Libby.

Additionally, Ms. Fletcher’s lawyers argued that she ran the web site for cathartic (medical) reason in an attempt to help herself and others move past issues of childhood exploitation. The fact that Ms. Fletcher charged a membership fee was utilized to argue that Ms. Fletcher was not attempting to distribute the materials. Since the case was one of the handful obscenity cases in twenty years and it involved only text and no visual images, First Amendment activities joined in the defense.

In response to the criticism that Mary Beth Buchanan received from first amendment activists, Ms. Buchanan stated, "It (Fletcher’s stories) is some of the most disturbing, disgusting and vile material that I've ever viewed." Later within another press statement, Mary Beth Buchanan stated that, "Obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment, and the law is clear on that," Buchanan said. "This is extremely egregious and is as patently offensive as material possibly could be. I cannot imagine material more offensive than the material in the case of Karen Fletcher."

While pornography by itself is not illegal, it can be prosecuted as obscenity if it fits the definition laid out by the Supreme Court more than 30 years ago. Under that ruling, Miller v. California, a work may be deemed obscene if, taken as a whole; it lacks artistic, literary or scientific merit, depicts certain conduct in a patently offensive manner, and violates contemporary community standards. This standard was the one that was to determine the jury’s calculus of guilt in the case of US vs. Karen Fletcher.

In the end though, the case did not go to trial. Ms. Fletcher, a recluse living on disability payments, opted to accept a plea bargain. One of Ms. Fletcher’s lawyers, Lawrence Walters, stated that his client, who has agoraphobia, a fear of public places, is not capable of sitting through what likely would be a weeklong trial. Under the proposed plea agreement, Ms. Fletcher would avoid prison and be sentenced to a term of home detention. In the view of some legal scholars, Ms. Fletcher's guilty plea will not set any precedent related to text-only obscenity prosecutions because she is entering the plea voluntarily.

Daniel Zehr (2004)

The case focuses on an Amish man, Daniel Zehr, who is seeking an exception to a law which requires that a photo be taken for one to receive legal residence in the United States. A lawsuit filed by the Amish is highly unusual in nature since the Amish hold a steadfast view that they should be non-confrontational. The lawsuit relates to a first amendment argument centered on freedom of religion.

Daniel Zehr is a Canadian citizen. Mr. Zehr is also a member of an Old Order Amish sect that takes literally the Bible's prohibition of graven images, which is why he has refused to consent to an immigration photo. Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).

In June 2001, Daniel Zehr entered the United States and married his wife, Ruth Anne. He has since lived in Licking Township in Clarion County, about 100 kilometers northeast of Pittsburgh where he has raised two children. Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).

In December 2003, Zehr traveled back to Canada to visit his father, who had suffered a heart attack. On his return to the United States in January of 2004, Zehr was stopped at the border and told that he had "self-deported" and could not return to the United States because he did not have a photo ID. Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).

Since Zehr’s religious beliefs prohibited photo images being taken, Zehr said he was willing to be fingerprinted and his lawyers argued that fingerprints are a better way to confirm a person's identity. Federal prosecutors refused the request and released a statement noting that a photo is crucial to Department of Homeland Security officials who do background checks of anyone seeking alien status or citizenship and denied such a request. Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).

In response to the denial, Daniel Zehr filed a lawsuit that argues that the photo requirement violates their religious freedom. Through filing his lawsuit against the photo requirement, Daniel Zehr risks being excommunicated from his Amish Sect for violation of their belief in nonresistance. The case is still pending. Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).

United States vs. John Eastman and United States vs. Albert McKelvey

In November of 2005, federal prosecutors charged two veterans with falsifying their rank and award recognition. John Eastman, one of the men charged, was accused of wearing a major’s insignia at a Veterans Day function on November 4, 2004. McKelvey, was accused of wearing a colonel’s uniform at a military function on Memorial Day 2004.

While both men had military experience, neither had achieved these ranks. In Mary Beth Buchanan’s statement to the press, she stated, ”To have individuals simply impersonate officers is an offense we have to address to preserve the integrity of the military service.”

The cases were filed during the high point of the debate concerning the Stolen Valor Act. Specific new provisions in the Act include: granting more authority to Federal law enforcement officers, extending scope beyond the Medal of Honor, broadening the law to cover false claims whereas previously an overt act had to be committed, covering mailing and shipping of medals, and protecting the reputation and meaning of military heroism medals.

At the close of the cases, neither individual received jail time. John Eastman pled guilty to the charge of impersonating an officer and received two years probation and a $500 fine. Albert McKelvey was order to pay a $2,500 fine.

United States vs. Dr. Cyril H. Wecht (2008)

Buchanan was known for her high-profile prosecutions of prominent democrats such as Sheriff Pete DeFazio, the mayor Tom Murphy, and a County Judge, Joseph Jaffe. She indicted the celebrity coroner Cyril Wecht on a raft of charges, including what his lawyers say was $3.96 worth of faxes, and $1,778.55 worth of gasoline and mileage bills charged to the state.

First Federal Trial of United States vs. Dr. Cyril Wecht

On January 28, 2008, the federal trial against Dr. Cyril Wecht began. The court motions and proceedings documented the controversy that were prevalent throughout the trial. Prior to the trial beginning, the defense team twice appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to have the district judge selected to preside over the trial removed. In the first appeal's court decision, the judge panel ruled 2 to 1 in favor of keeping the judge. In the subsequent proceeding, the appeals body reaffirmed the previous opinion.

Speculation amassed that the prosecution of Dr. Wecht was politically motivated since he was a prominent Democrat in the Pittsburgh area and the announcement of the initial indictment was close to the election date of 2006. The controversy around such charges resulted in Former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, a defense lawyer for Dr. Cyril Wecht, being called to testify before a house panel investigating the US Attorneys' Firing Scandal. Governor Thornburgh testified that he felt the case against Dr. Wecht, a nationally prominent forensic pathologist, “would qualify as an ideal target for a Republican U.S. attorney (Mary Beth Buchanan) trying to curry favor with a department which demonstrated that if you play by its rules, you will advance.” During the trial of Dr. Wecht, the judge barred the defense from raising the arguments that the case was politically motivated. Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page). Even though neither the defense nor the prosecution were able to raise the speculation that the case was politically motivated during the trial, jurors informed reporters after the trial that they felt by the close of the trial that the case against Dr. Wecht was politically motivated. Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).

In addition to the controversy around the case being politically motivated, controversy amassed around the credibility of the lead FBI Investigator on the case, Brad Orsini. Agent Orsini had previous disciplinary actions against him that included writing other agents' initials on witness interview reports and signing agents' names to chain-of-custody forms and evidence labels. Dr. Wecht's defense team argue successfully for the agent's personal records to be unsealed and attempted to use the information within the records to argue for the exclusion of evidence obtained by Agent Orsini during the investigation. The attempts by Dr. Wecht's defense team proved unsuccessful. The prosecution opted not to call Agent Orsini or any other investigator as a witness during the trial of Dr. Wecht.

The judge attempted to seat an anonymous jury (an action usually reserved only for cases in which jurors' lives may be threatened such as in an organized crime case). After motions from the defense and news media contested the judge's decision, the judge relented and dismissed the request for the seating of an anonymous jury.

Roughly two weeks prior to the start of the trial proceedings, the prosecution attempted to have 43 of out of the 84 counts against Wecht dismissed without prejudice, yet were overruled by the judge that dismissed the charges with prejudice, which bars the charges from being refiled against Dr. Wecht.

The prosecution's case lasted for twenty four days. Upon the prosecution resting their case, the defense rested without calling a single witness to counter the prosecution's case or witnesses presented. After eleven days of deliberation, the case ended with the jury informing the court for a second time that a decision could not be reached and the judge declaring a mistrial. In response to the judge's decision, the prosecution immediately informed the court they planned to retry Dr. Wecht.

Aftermath of First Federal Trial of United States vs. Dr. Cyril Wecht

Since the mistrial, jurors in the first case against Dr. Wecht have raised concern to reporters about FBI agents contacting them since the trial to schedule meetings with the US Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan. Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page). When the contact of the jurors by the FBI became public, Dr. Wecht's lawyers filed a motion requesting how the FBI, members of the prosecutor's team, were able to locate the jurors after the trial since the district judge in the case had ruled at the start of the trial that the jurors' names were not to be recorded by either the prosecution team or the defense team. Public concern has risen concerning the case which resulted in Representative Mike Doyle and Representative John Conyers Jr., who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, providing statements concerning the prosecution's tactics in the aftermath of the first trial.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN CONYERS - "I am deeply troubled by reports of FBI agents contacting former jurors who failed to convict Dr. Wecht. Whether reckless or intended, it is simply common sense that such contacts can have a chilling effect on future juries in this and other cases. When added to the troubling conduct of this prosecution, there is the appearance of a win-at-all-costs mentality." Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE DOYLE "I am very reluctant to intervene in a judicial proceeding - and like most people have watched quietly as the government's case against Cyril Wecht was made - but after seeing news reports from jurors, I have serious concerns about the appropriateness of a retrial.

Specifically, I have concerns about the government's decision to seek a retrial before even interviewing the Wecht trial jurors. Had they done so, they would have learned, as reported by the jury foreman, that a majority of the jurors were voting not guilty on the charges and that many had come to the conclusion that the case was politically motivated.

It also concerns me greatly that the FBI contacted jurors at their homes to request interviews about why they deadlocked. That would be intimidating to just about anyone.

If what is being reported is true, it is my intention to contact the Attorney General's office to ask him to review this case to determine whether justice would be served and taxpayers' money well spent by seeking a retrial." Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).

Public outcry against the continuation of the government's case against Dr. Wecht has continued since the outcome of the first trial. The op-eds in both local papers, The Pittsburgh Post Gazette and the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, have both repeatedly called repeatedly for the trial to be dismissed. In response to the negative press coverage, Assistant US Attorney Stalling filed in a government response to the defense team's request to delay the start of the second trial that the government may seek an out-of-town jury to oversee the second trial.

On April 12th, 2008, 33 prominent leaders in the Pittsburgh community sent a letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey and US Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan requesting that the prosecution dismiss the indictment against Dr. Wecht. Shortly after the press release of this letter, Senator Arlen Spector also publicly recommended against a retrial for Dr. Wecht. The list of individuals who signed onto the letter include prominent members of both the Allegheny Republican and Democratic Party, 9 members of the Allegheny County Council, the former Allegheny County Executive who oversaw Dr. Wecht as county coroner during the indictment period; one of the former U.S. Attorneys for the Western District of Pennsylvania (the position that US Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan no holds); current and former members of the United States Congress, and many prominent lawyers and other members of the Allegheny County community. The complete list is as follows:

Edward Abes, Treasurer of the Allegheny County Democratic Party; James Burns, Chair of the Allegheny County Democratic Party; Nicolas Cafardi, Dean Emeritus and Professor of Duquesne University School of Law; John Cleary and member of Allegheny County Council; Ronald Davenport Sr., Chairman of Sheridan Broadcasting Corporation; John P. Defazio, member of Allegheny County Council; James R. Ellenbogen, member of Allegheny County Council; Patrick Fagan, Executive Secretary of Allegheny County Labor Council; Michael J. Finnerty, member of Allegheny County Council; Richard Fitzgerald, Chairman of Allegheny County Council; Dan B. Frankel, Pennsylvania State Representative for the 23rd District; Nicholas W. Futules, member of Allegheny County Council; Amanda Green, member of Allegheny County Council; William Greem, Senior Partner of William J. Green & Associates; Kenneth C. Greiner, Business Manager of Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local Union 12; Donald J. Guter, Dean of Duquesne University School of Law; Melissa Hart, Former Member of the United States Congress; Heather Heidelbaugh, Esquire; Elsie Hillman, Former Chair of Republican Party of Allegheny County; Billy Jackson, Filmmaker; Jerry Johnson, Former U.S. Attorney of the Western District of Pennsylvania from 1981 to 1989; Louis Kendrick, Former Pittsburgh City Councilman; Bob Macey, member of the Allegheny County Council; John McIntire, WQED-TV commentator; Tom Murphy, Mayor of the City of Pittsburgh from 1994 to 2005; Ralph R. Reiland, Associate Professor of Economics for Robert Morris University; William Russell Robinson, member of Allegheny County Council; Jim Roddey, Chair of Republican Party of Allegheny County and Former Allegheny County Executive; Evans Rose, Esquire; June Schulberg, Esquire; Celeste Taylor, Co-Chair of Black Political Empowerment Program; James Treher, Retired FBI Special Agent; and

Sala Udin, Former Member of Pittsburgh City Council

After the prosecution release a letter by one of the jurors stated that the jury was in favor of convicting Dr. Wecht on 14 counts 6-5, five members of the jury from the first trial held a press conference to discuss the jury deliberations on April 28th, 2008. The jurors stated the final split was 8-to-3 in favor of acquittal on 27 counts charging Dr. Wecht with using a county fax machine and the U.S. mail in a scheme to defraud county taxpayers. The jurors confirmed the statements of the juror disclosed in the letter disclosed by the prosecution that they were split 6-to-5 to convict on 14 other allegations that Dr. Wecht charged private clients inflated or bogus travel expenses and that he misappropriated more than $5,000 a year of county resources for personal use. Overall, the five jurors stated they believed that Dr. Wecht made mistakes but that they, the jurors, were not convinced Dr. Wecht meant to cheat taxpayers -- a necessary element to find him guilty. One juror stated during the press conference, "We just could not find any intent to defraud in any shape or form. We truly did try. We went through count by count by count. ... It's just time to let everything go." These viewpoint seems to demonstrate that the jurors agreed with the defense argument that the actions at issue in the case were civil matters of improper bookkeeping that did not contain the necessary criminal intent or malice needed for the criminal charges. Even with these statements, the prosecution has continued steadfast with their decision to retry Dr. Wecht on the 41 criminal charges.

When the five jurors were questioned on whether they thought politics drove the prosecution, an argument defense lawyers were prohibited from making during the trial, they responded that they did view it as an impact on the decision in the case on part of the prosecution. One juror stated to the press, "I don't know if they were political or not, but the motivation was definitely less than pure." The jurors then questioned what seemed to them to be a one-sided investigation, an excessive amount of court documents that seemed more about "quantity than quality," and prosecution witnesses -- including a nun -- who were sympathetic to the defense. The nun, Sister Grace Ann Geibel, the former president of Carlow University, disputed a government claim that Dr. Wecht traded corpses from the county morgue to Carlow in exchange for free lab space to work on private cases.

The second trial was expected to start in May 27, 2008; however on May 8th, a three panel judge body of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals composed of Judges D. Brooks Smith, D. Michael Fisher and Franklin S. Van Antwerpen issued an indefinite stay in the trial proceedings. The stay is to provide the Third Circuit Court of Appeals time to review an appeal on the motion for dismissal by the defense that was denied by the district judge. The motion for argues that Wecht can not be retried due to double jeopardy as a result of the judge not following federal procedures. The procedures violated were that the judge failed to poll jurors individually to ensure they were, in fact, deadlocked, failed to ask the attorneys if they consented to a mistrial, failed to show the attorneys the final note from the jurors that said they were "essentially" deadlocked, and failed to question the jury foreman. Wecht's attorneys also argued in their motion that the judge acted inappropriately by asking the prosecution -- while the first jury was still present -- if it would retry Dr. Wecht.

Alleged Involvement in US Attorney Dismissal Controversy

Mary Beth Buchanan has been alleged to have been involved in the firing of the US Attorneys for not embarking on politically motivated prosecutions. The congressional committee investigation has focused on whether nine U.S. attorneys were fired by the Justice Department because they had prosecuted Republicans or did not press charges against Democrats. The controversy is known as the Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy.

In April of 2007, Kyle Sampson, the former Gonzales aide, raised Ms. Buchanan's name to judiciary committee investigators during his April testimony. Mr. Sampson said that Ms. Buchanan was among the DOJ officials he consulted about which of the U.S. attorneys should be asked to resign.

In May of 2007, Monica Goodling told committee members that she knew Ms. Buchanan had discussed the firings with Mr. Sampson. Before Ms. Goodling joined the White House, Ms. Goodling was hired by Ms. Buchanan to work in the executive office.

In addition to having Goodling and Sampson allege she was involved in the firing decisions, critics of Mary Beth Buchanan have claimed that she has embarked on several high profile public corruption cases that have exclusively targeted Democratic politicians such as former Sheriff Pete DeFazio, former Mayor Tom Murphy and former Allegheny County Medical Examiner Cyril Wecht.

One critic, Allegheny County Democratic Chairman Jim Burn stated that ”Her record speaks for itself. I've seen a long line of Democrats and mistakes aren't made based on party affiliation but I haven't seen anybody from the other side going though that system." Mr. Burns pointed to the fact that Mary Beth Buchanan’s Office refused to investigate former Republican Senator Rick Santorum who got a tuition reimbursement for his kids by claiming a Penn Hills residency when his family spends most of its time in Virginia as an example of an alleged double standard. "You have to ask yourself the misrepresentations of a Republican such as Rick Santorum made about his alleged residency in Penn Hills were significant," said Burn.

After learning this information, the House Judiciary Committee requested an interview with Mary Beth Buchanan in June of 2006. Committee staff members privately questioned Buchanan. She had served as director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys in 2004 and 2005 when discussions were held within the Justice Department concerning which of the country's 93 top federal prosecutors should be dismissed. Buchanan has denied any involvement in the firings.

After the interviews, it was reported that Mary Beth Buchanan used another exit to leave the federal building were the interviews were conducted and headed directly to the airport for a flight back to Pittsburgh without providing statements on the proceedings. Buchanan has denied any involvement in the firings of the US Attorneys and has denied that the prosecutions of key Democratic politicians in the Western PA area was driven by political factors.

Since the interview, the Judiciary Committee has continued its investigation. On April 17, 2008, the Judiciary Committee released a report which provided some of the details into the investigation into the US Attorney firings. The report stated it was impossible to know if Wecht's prosecution was politically motivated because the Justice Department has not turned over certain documents to committee investigators, and U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab has refused to hold a hearing on Wecht's claim of selective prosecution.

References

1. ^ "Chong Family Values". LA Weekly Times. 4th December 2003. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
2. "Tommy Chong's Bongs". Reason Magazine. may 2004. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
3. ^ "Buchanan picks new target: products that mask drug use". Pittsburgh Post Gazette. 11th May 2008. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
4. "Actor Tommy Chong Claims Link to FBI Raids". Local 12.com. 8th May 2008. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
5. ^ "A Prosecution Tests the Definition of Obscenity". New York Times. 28th September 2007. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
6. ^ "Afraid of public trial, author to plead guilty in online obscenity case". Pittsburgh Post Gazette. 17th May 2008. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
7. ^ "Donora writer faces obscenity charges". Pittsburgh Tribune Review. 22nd October 2006. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
8. ^ "Two charged with impersonating Marines". Pittsburgh Tribune Review. 5th November 2005. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
9. "Fake colonel gets fine". Pittsburgh Tribune Review. 28th April 2006. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
10. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/alleged_political_prosecution.php "Allegedly Political Prosecution Ends in Hung Jury," Talking Points Memo, April 9, 2008
11. "Pittsburgh judge will remain on Wecht Case". Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. 13th April 2007. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
12. . NY Times. 24th October 2007. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
13. "FBI Agent in Wecht case scrutinized in court". Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. 19th September 2007. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
14. "Judge relents on anonymous jury in Wecht case". Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. 21st December 2007. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
15. "Judge approves dismissal of some Wecht charges". Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. 4th January 2008. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
16. "Wecht trial over; feds to try again". Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. 8th April 2008. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
17. "Sources of Wecht jury names sought". Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. 15th April 2008. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
18. "Prosecution says Wecht retrial needs 'outsiders'". Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. 16th April 2008. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
19. ^ "Open Letter Calling for Reconsideration of Wecht Retrial". Talking Points Memo. 16th April 2008. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
20. ^ "Ex-coroner Wecht not a criminal, jurors say". Pittsburgh Tribune Review. 29th April 2008. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
21. "Court puts indefinite stay on Wecht trial". Pittsburgh Post Gazette. 8th May 2008. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
22. ^ "House, Senate aides quiz Buchanan on firings". Pittsburgh Post Gazette. 16th June 2007. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
23. ^ "Some Question Tactics Of U.S. Attorney Buchanan". kdka.com. 16th march 2007. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
24. "House, Senate aides quiz Buchanan on firings". Pittsburgh Post Gazette. 16th June 2007. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
25. "Cases examined for political motives". Pittsburgh Tribune Review. 18th April 2008. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Links

• United States Attorney's Office, Western District of Pennsylvania, Mary Beth Buchanan
• "Roscoe Native Makes History as U.S. Attorney," Stacy Wolford, Valley Independent, February 26, 2002
• "Mary Beth Buchanan Makes Her Case: How Our U.S. Attorney Grew To Be the Darling Of John Ashcroft and the Nemesis Of Civil Libertarians," Chris Potter, Pittsburgh City Paper, May 6, 2004
• "Buchanan Has Many Critics," The Associated Press, The Observer-Reporter, April 27, 2007

• 1963 births
• Living people
• United States Attorneys
• Pennsylvania Republicans