Media Leak Draws Reprimand

The media leak by a defense attorney of his client’s confession captured on a CD in a death penalty case has led to a reprimand by the Disciplinary Board of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

The consent sanction admitted that the conduct violated seven disciplinary rules.

The board acknowledged significant good character mitigation, found the conduct “aberrational” and not intended to harm the client

although Respondent believed he was acting in [the client’s] best interest, prior to meeting with the media and providing a reporter with his client’s taped confession it was incumbent upon Respondent to specifically consult with [his client] and obtain [his] informed consent regarding Respondent’s plan to have [his client’s] confession broadcasted to the public simultaneous to [his] formal guilty plea.

The Intelligencer reported on the underlying case

Recordings of the defendants’ statements in the Solebury quadruple-murder case that were leaked to a news outlet by one of the men’s attorneys amid plea hearings has hobbled Sean Kratz’s defense, said the accused killer’s new lawyer.

“The release and publication of the Cosmo DiNardo and Sean Kratz audio files are obviously something that should not have happened,” said Kratz’s newly appointed defense attorney, Keith Williams. “This action has further traumatized the victims’ families, impugned the reputation of the District Attorney’s Office and compromised the defense of Sean Kratz.”

Kratz, who reneged on a negotiated plea in the case last week, now faces the death penalty if convicted at trial.

He remains charged with three counts of criminal homicide and other counts after abandoning the plea agreement. He was expected to plead guilty and serve 59 to 118 years for third-degree murder and conspiracy counts in the killing of Dean Finocchiaro, as well as the robberies of two other men and the subsequent abuse of their dead bodies.

DiNardo, 21, of Bensalem, accepted his plea agreement and is now serving four consecutive life sentences for the grisly July 7 slayings of Finocchiaro, 19, of Middletown, Thomas Meo, 21, of Plumstead, and Mark Sturgis, 22, of Pennsburg, as well as the July 5 killing of 19-year-old Jimi Taro Patrick, of Newtown. Each of the killings occurred on a sprawling farm property owned by DiNardo’s parents.

His former attorney, Craig Penglase, who was key in negotiating Kratz’s deal, was removed from the case in the days following the abandoned plea over an unspecified “potential conflict of interest.” He has since admitted in a letter to prosecutors published Tuesday that he was responsible for the leak of interview audio to a television station.

Potential jurors might have heard the recordings, Williams said Wednesday, meaning that if his client’s case goes to trial, it might, at the very least, require a costly out-of-town jury pool.

He said it’s also unclear whether Kratz, 21, of Northeast Philadelphia, knew Penglase had leaked the recordings when he rejected a plea deal a week ago, and if such knowledge influenced his decision.

Details of Penglase’s removal and Williams’ appointment, public in court filings since Monday, were put on record during a public hearing Wednesday afternoon before President Judge Jeffrey L. Finley. Kratz, who appeared in an orange prison jumpsuit and shackles, confirmed to Finley that he agreed with Penglase that it was in his best interest to get a new attorney.

Penglase, while leaving the courtroom accompanied closely by another lawyer Wednesday, did not stop to speak with reporters and declined to comment when reached after the hearing. He did not respond when asked if he had hired his own lawyers.

The recordings became the subject of several TV news segments aired in the aftermath of last week’s hearings.

First Assistant District Attorney Gregg Shore has maintained that his office does not believe the leak presents an issue for the case against Kratz. But Kratz’s death penalty attorney Niels Eriksen suggested Wednesday that, leak or not, the late-April interview should not be evidence at trial.

“It was made as part of a plea agreement,” he said. “Statements made during negotiation of a plea can’t be admitted.”

The issue almost certainly will be raised in pretrial motions, Eriksen and Williams said.

While Williams comes to the case fresh, Eriksen was appointed last year alongside Penglase. He has said he was surprised to learn his co-counsel leaked the interviews, and stood with Williams as he denounced the leaks after Wednesday’s hearing.

“We believe that in working together with Mr. Eriksen, we can get this case back on track and bring it to its rightful conclusion,” Williams said. “Whatever that may be.”

Wednesday’s statements will likely be the last made publicly in the case for some time, as Judge Finley is expected to issue a gag order barring further comment from attorneys until the case concludes.

A legal ethics expert said Penglase could face official discipline over the leak.

“It was not wise to do that,” said Sam Stretton, a West Chester-based attorney who defends lawyers and judges facing ethics violations.

While any disciplinary action could be minor, Stretton said the more lasting consequences could be less public.

“He may have some problems with the DA’s office for a while. They may not trust him — of course, they don’t trust us anyway,” Stretton said with a laugh, referencing the divide between prosecutors and defense attorneys.

But if such a rift exists in Bucks County, Penglase for a time seemed to bridge it as he worked closely with prosecutors representing clients in a number of high-profile cases. Despite ultimately unraveling, the deal reached in Kratz’s case was further evidence of the attorney’s skill in negotiating difficult cases.

“I’m just confused about why he did it,” Stretton said. “These are good lawyers. But everyone makes a stupid decision.”

WHYY reported on the November 2019 verdict in the Kratz case. (Mike Frisch)