But I have to keep tabs on this story.
From the P-G:
The state Superior Court on Wednesday upheld the conviction of former Allegheny County Councilman Charles McCullough, whose case has a long and tortured history.A few important dates:
McCullough, 65, was found guilty of five counts of theft and five counts of misapplication of entrusted funds following a non-jury trial before Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Lester G. Nauhaus in 2015. He was accused of writing more than $40,000 in political contributions from the accounts of Shirley Jordan, an elderly widow he represented, without her permission.
McCullough was initially arrested in February 2009 and it took more than six years to get the case to trial. In November 2015, McCullough was sentenced to serve 2½ to five years in prison, but he still has not begun serving that punishment, as the sentence has been on hold pending appeal.
- February 19, 2009 - McCullough arrested
- July 31, 2015 - McCullough found guilty
- December 17, 2015 - McCullough sentenced
- 11 years, 1 month and 8 days since he was arrested
- 4 years, 7 months and 27 days since he was found guilty
- 4 years, 3 months and 10 days since he was sentenced
McCullough said he had wanted to have a jury hear his case, but that he feared repercussions from Judge Nauhaus if he went against his wishes.So look at some of the duration since:
- Chuck's sentencing - longer than US involvement in World War II (3 years, 8 months, 26 days).
- Chuck was found guilty - longer than the whole of World War I (4 years, 3 months, 14 days)
- Chuck's arrest - longer than the entire run of Friends (9 years, 7 months, 14 days)
Prosecutors said that and other statements McCullough made in his motion for recusal contradicted his statement under oath that no one threatened or coerced him to waive a jury in favor of a bench trial.Here's the thing in simpler language. At the beginning of the trial McCullough said under oath that no one coerced him to accept a "judge only" trial. (Full disclosure: I was there, a few rows of courtroom chairs away.) So by stating under oath that he feared repercussions from Judge Nauhaus, Chuck (in my non-attorney mind, at least) constructed two contradictory sworn statements. Logically, one has to be a lie.
And lying under oath is perjury.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled apocalypse.