RSS | 
Twitter
| 
Be a fan!
Rape suspect's lawyer faces drug charges
An Allegheny County man scheduled to go to trial next week in Washington County Court on charges of sexually assaulting three young women in East Bethlehem Township has more than his own serious legal problem to worry about.
Melvin R. Clark, 45, of West View, also has to be concerned about whether his attorney will be there.
Rate This Story:
1 the lowest - 5 the highest
Current rating:
But his attorney, William F. Conway, 60, of Bloomfield, is also scheduled to go to trial Wednesday on drug charges in Allegheny County.
Conway asked to have Clark's trial postponed because of the unusual circumstances. However, DiSalle rejected that request and ordered that jury selection begin Monday with testimony beginning immediately thereafter.
Meanwhile, Conway is set to be at his own trial Wednesday before Allegheny County Judge Donald E. Machen on charges of possession of marijuana, possession with intent to deliver, delivery of marijuana, criminal conspiracy and contraband.
Conway was arrested March 23, 2007, after he allegedly passed a package of marijuana and rolling papers to an inmate he was visiting in the Allegheny County Jail.
When contacted Friday, Conway said he planned to be in Washington County Monday to defend Clark during his trial. He said he was attempting to get his trial continued, but Machen had not yet approved the request.
"It's in the works," he said.
Machen's tipstaff said Friday that the judge will be out of town Wednesday, so Conway either can ask for a postponement or the trial can be held before another judge.
nice attorney : 3/7/2009
nice attorney......guess what melvin....your fried like!
Stupid and irresponsible reporting by Linda Metz and the O-R Editors : 3/7/2009
Reporting his lawyer's charges is unfairly prejudicial to the child rapist by tainting the jury pool with scandalous information. Now DiSalle will have to grant Conway's request to withdraw and probably delay this case for the victims. If not he probably creates a reversible appeal issue. People who report legal news should have some clue about the consequences of their reporting. At best, Linda Metz and the O-R get nominated for a Darwin Award for this one. At worst, one might say the O-R intentionally tainted a child rapist case. I think at a minimum the O-R should respond in an editoral and qualify why it ran the article.
