Right criticism, wrong judge

Here in the patch, we are waiting with baited breath to see how HeraldStandard.com editor Mark O'Keefe handles a prickly situation concerning retiring Fayette County Judge Ralph Warman.

Just a couple weeks ago, HeraldStandard.com lauded the retiring Warman in an editorial, which said in part: He was methodical in handling trials and his various hearings, taking great lengths to make sure justice was being served. There was no such thing as a shortcut or doing something the easy way. To Warman, there was only one way to do things and that was the right way.

As a newspaperman, O'Keefe has a solemn obligation to support the public's right to know, especially as concerns public information and those who prefer to keep things secret.

Warman just made his life a little harder on that count. On Wednesday, the judge declared a mistrial in the trial for a man accused of shooting two people outside of a Unintown bar. ("Mistrial declared in shootings," HeraldStandard.com, June 7).

According to that story, Warman summoned the defense and prosecution attorneys, along with a female juror, to his chambers. When they returned to court an hour later, Warman granted the defense attorney's request for a mistrial -- over the objections of the prosecution attorney -- but refused to state why.

The judge who never took a shortcut or did something the easy way, according to HeraldStandard.com, appears to be, well,  taking a shortcut and doing something the easy way.

It gets worse, if you are a champion of open government, like O'Keefe: Not only did Warman refuse to offer an explanation for his ruling, he apparently told the two attorneys to zip their lips, too. The story says: Afterward, both attorneys declined to comment on what had occurred to cause the mistrial. (Assistant District Attorney J.W.) Eddy said they were advised by Warman not to discuss the reason and declined to say more about what had happened.

What is the harm in stating why this mistrial was declared? Doesn't the public have a right to know? Without this knowledge, how can anyone determine whether Warman made the right, or even a sound, decision?

The prosecution attorney objected to the move, so apparently at least he thinks the trial should have gone on as scheduled. He should be permitted to state why.

Will O'Keefe pound Warman, in any way, shape or form, for wanting to keep things hush-hush? Or will he let the issue slide, no questions asked?

The answer may be found in Friday's editorial, "Judge is wrong." The Herald-Standard criticized a judge, all right -- only it was the judge overseeing the trial of Jerry Sandusky in Centre County, in an editorial reprinted from the Altoona Mirror.

Instead of criticizing Warman, the judge in their own back yard, O'Keefe and Co. opted to put their stamp of approval on another newspaper's critique of Senior Judge John Cleland, criticizing him for banning electronic transmissions from the Sandusky trial.

Everyone should take special note of two lines from that editorial:

"All courts shall be open." (A line taken from the Pennsylvania Constitution.)

And: While Pennsylvania has the constitutional edict to have open courts, our judges have taken an activist, revisionist role in defining what open courts mean.

Would that also apply to Warman? Is refusing to state the reason for declaring a mistrial in keeping with the concept that "all courts shall be open"?

We suspect that O'Keefe would rather get purposely lost in Laurel Caverns for a month than write something even remotely critical of Warman.