Arguments over evidence continue in Ward trial

Marketing Professor Scott Ward's defense attorney Jean Green continued to argue against the admissibility of evidence seized from Ward's home in the second day of a preliminary hearing Tuesday in the Montgomery County Courthouse. Ward faces charges including criminal attempts to commit corruption of a minor, involuntary deviate intercourse and solicitation to commit prostitution. As on Monday, no jury was present at the hearing -- only Judge Bernard Moore heard the arguments. Montgomery County Deputy District Attorney Thomas Egan said the evidence against Ward includes "articles about boys engaging in homosexual acts?[and] dozens of photographs of young males engaging in masturbatory acts and sexual relations." According to Egan, detectives also found an article about child prostitution in Russia, along with an unsigned letter complaining the article "puts what we like on the agenda." But Green argued that these items were obtained illegally. David Ginsberg, the attorney for "B.M.," the assumed name of a child who is the state's chief witness, questioned Green's claims. "The defense in this case is engaged in a very effective attempt to keep most of the damaging evidence out of the hands of the jury and public," he said last night. "I believe that if all the evidence is carefully evaluated, there can be no difficulty in reaching a just decision." The prosecution also questioned the legality of certain pieces of evidence gathered by the defense. Egan motioned to prevent the use of audio and video interviews that the defense had conducted with B.M. in February. Egan claims the defense acted unethically in their interview, because Ward's attorney "lured B.M. into New Jersey in order to circumvent the wiretap act." Egan explained that certain aspects of the interview violated Pennsylvania state law, so the defense conducted the interview in New Jersey, where the law varies. And Egan claimed the defense attorneys did not inform Ginsberg of the interview. Moore is expected to return a decision concerning the suppression of evidence and the sequestering of the jury sometime next week. The hearing will resume on Monday when arguments on the admissibility of evidence will continue. Green was unavailable for comment.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.