Informant testifies at Ward trial

On the day Alan Giorgio was sentenced to three to six years in prison for burglary, he came forward to accuse Marketing Professor Scott Ward of various sex crimes. Subsequently, Giorgio's sentence was lightened. Whether Giorgio's testimony will be considered valid is up to Montgomery County Common Pleas Judge Bernard Moore, who is to rule on the admissibility of several key pieces of evidence in Ward's criminal trial. The pre-trial hearing to determine what evidence can be presented to the jury drew to a close yesterday in the Montgomery County Courthouse, but the actual trial will not begin until Moore releases his decision on the evidence. Moore's ruling is not expected for at least 20 days. The prosecution has claimed the delays are the result of a defense attempt to further stall the case, a contention Ward's attorneys deny. Ward faces charges including criminal attempts to corrupt a minor, involuntary deviate intercourse and solicitation to commit prostitution. At yesterday's hearing, the prosecution and the defense presented their final arguments. Donald Martin, one of Ward's attorneys, summarized the defense's long-standing position that all of the prosecution's evidence was illegally obtained. Deputy District Attorney Thomas Egan claimed the evidence was properly gathered. The dispute centers around the search of Ward's home the night of his arrest, October 1, 1993. When police entered Ward's house, they did not possess a search warrant. Detective Raymond Kuter of the Montgomery County DA's office was at District Judge Henry Schireson's house at the time, attempting to obtain a warrant. Kuter later called Ward's home, which police already had entered, to tell them of he had received the warrant. The police then commenced their search of the home, according to Egan. The detectives at the scene testified that they were in a rush because the search warrant, issued at 9:50 p.m., stated the search had to begin by 10 p.m. Martin argued that a search without the physical presence of a warrant is "warrantless" and that any evidence obtained in the search is inadmissible in court. According to Egan, this evidence includes "articles about boys engaging in homosexual acts?[and] dozens of photographs of young males engaging in masturbatory acts and sexual relations." Martin further claimed that Kuter did not have probable cause to obtain the warrant or a previous one that allowed Pennsylvania State Trooper Sean McMahon to pose undercover as a 15-year-old boy in a sting operation called an "intercept." Ward allegedly propositioned McMahon for sex on the night of the arrest. The warrant for McMahon's intercept was signed by a district neutral judge. Martin argued that, according to a ruling in a different case tried a few months later, the detectives would have needed permission from a superior judge. But Egan claimed the intercept was legal. "We made every compliance with every law existing at that time," he said. The probable cause for the search warrant was primarily based upon McMahon's experience and Giorgio's testimony. If, as the defense claims, McMahon's operation was illegal and Giorgio's testimony is inaccurate, Moore may suppress all of the evidence from the jury because of a lack of probable cause in the search. The defense has shown discrepancies between Giorgio's original testimony and the statements he made "after his sentence was lightened?and he talked to his attorney about perjury," according to Martin. But Egan said the discrepancies had to do with minor details -- not the main ideas. In addition, he said, Giorgio volunteered the information "without expectation of receiving any benefit and without requesting any." Egan argued that Giorgio's lightened sentence was due to a court mistake made during the sentencing process. However, Martin claimed that the new sentence "was more lenient than the mistake allowed for." The defense requested a brief from Egan before Moore reaches a decision. They also asked for, and were granted, 20 days to look over the brief. But Egan is vacating his position as deputy district attorney on April 28, and another DA will have to take over the case. "The defense is stalling, in my view," he said. He claimed the defense knew about his imminent departure a week ago. "I'm one of the most senior people here and I'm familiar with the case," he added. "By asking for 20 days, they know we will have to assign a new prosecutor."

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