Pennsylvania corruption: In court, immunity can affect case

Analysis: In court, immunity can affect case
BY BORYS KRAWCZENIUK (STAFF WRITER)

Two weeks of trial has revealed prosecutors granted full or limited immunity to nine witnesses who testified and two companies whose owners were among the nine.

Several testified to paying bribes that wound up with Mr. Cordaro or Mr. Munchak. Paying bribes is a crime, but because they had immunity, they will not be charged unless prosecutors determine they lied when testifying.

In his opening statement, Jerry Johnson, one of Mr. Cordaro's defense lawyers, all but ignored details of how Mr. Cordaro would defend himself to focus on what he argued was a too-liberal use of immunity.

"You're going to have to decide whether the people who got immunity are telling the truth" or just what they think prosecutors want to hear, Mr. Johnson told the jury.

In the Munchak-Cordaro case, it is unclear how prosecutors broke the bribery circle because questions about that went unasked in court, though it is believed the case began with the arrest of Mr. Cordaro's childhood friend, Charles A. "Chuckie" Costanzo, who was convicted of looting the county workers' compensation fund of $650,000.

Case prosecutors have declined to comment before and during the trial, but with nine immunized witnesses, it is clear immunity was a critical part of breaking the circle.

Two of those witnesses - West Scranton funeral director Al Hughes and Highland Associates co-owner Don Kalina - are linchpins of the prosecution case.

Mr. Hughes testified he handed Mr. Cordaro $365,000 in illegal bribes paid over a three-year period by officials of the now-defunct Acker Associates civil engineering firm. He also testified he obtained an extra $14,000 share of the profit on the construction of a county 911 radio tower for Mr. Cordaro.

Mr. Kalina testified he twice gave Mr. Munchak envelopes stuffed with $30,000 in $100 bills and gave another to Mr. Cordaro.

There are claims of passed cash, but Mr. Kalina and Mr. Hughes are behind by far the largest amounts, so the defense has concentrated on them.

Mr. Cordaro portrayed Mr. Hughes as untrustworthy, a degenerate gambler who loved to bet on college basketball and football games or matters such as whether the county would sell the Montage Ski Resort.

During one Bahamas trip, Mr. Hughes wagered $5,000 or $10,000 a hand at blackjack, Mr. Cordaro said.

"He'd be getting his clock cleaned and, by the way, he was betting football games at $5,000 a clip all weekend," Mr. Cordaro testified. "I'm sure I saw a $15,000 bet, and it could have been more. It was just amazing."

The implication is Mr. Hughes pocketed the bribe money to keep up with his gambling habit, and Mr. Cordaro and Mr. Munchak awarded contracts to Acker fair and square.

In Mr. Kalina's case, the focus was on his extramarital affairs with two women and whether needing to pay to keep them gave him a motive to take the bribe money he and his partners pooled to pay the girlfriends.

For Mr. Kalina, who earned a $1.3 million bonus in 2005 alone, $90,000 in bribes seems like small change.