Laurels & lances: Recusal and responsibility
Share this post:
Laurel: To fair consideration. A Westmoreland County judge has agreed to consider removing himself from the case of a former police officer accused of lying.
Ryan Matthew Clark, 33, of Buffalo Township is a former Arnold cop who was arrested in 2022 by county detectives and charged with filing a false report and tampering with evidence. It occurred after Clark claimed his patrol vehicle was damaged in a hit-and-run at a Freeport Road convenience store. Surveillance images showed no such crash but did show Clark take a damaged piece of rocker panel out of the car and place it outside.
The issue in question? Judge Scott Mears previously found Clark’s testimony in an unrelated criminal case to be not credible.
Mears didn’t just give the suggestion a grudging “I’ll think about it.” He requested that attorney Marc Daffner file a formal motion seeking the recusal.
This is the kind of measured appreciation for the case and the ramifications that should be the default for every judge — and that reports in recent years show often is not the case. Whether Mears decides to recuse or not, he is doing the right thing by giving the matter grave consideration.
Lance: To a sad situation. A pet dog was killed in January after being electrocuted on the Murray Avenue Bridge in Pittsburgh.
The dog’s death came after previous concerns were raised about current on the bridge. A Pittsburgh city investigator was dispatched but found no signs of electrical current. Had a problem been discovered, it would have been addressed by an electrician, but, because nothing was found, that didn’t happen.
Solicitor Krysia Kubiak said in a statement electricians would be dispatched to similar incidents in the future. An independent consultant’s report indicated a low-voltage current was responsible. Kubiak said a “full-grown adult with proper clothing” would have been unlikely to notice. The dog, however, made contact.
While it’s good the city is switching procedures to address the problem, the statement seems short on acknowledging the loss of the animal and the potential harm that could have occurred to people.
“A full-grown adult with proper clothing” would be safe, but what about someone without proper clothing? That’s a very real possibility in a city with a significant homeless community. And what about a child?
The statement seems more like recognition of an unfortunate bureaucratic faux pas than an acceptance of responsibility.