gossip

Beaver County District Attorney Anthony Berosh said today that a clerk in the Sheriff’s Office was not to blame for Larry Hicks being erroneously issued a concealed carry permit. He also issued a strong warning about witness intimidation.

Rumors were being circulated within the courthouse today that Stephanie Guidice, a clerk in the Sheriff’s Office, had been “hiding” Hicks’ application for a concealed carry permit making it unavailable to prosecutors as evidence during his preliminary hearing. Several people within the Sheriff’s Office were also publicly blaming Guidice for issuing Hicks a permit in the first place. Prosecutors say Hicks has prior convictions which should have made him ineligible to receive a permit to carry a firearm.

District Attorney Berosh sought to quash those rumors, insisting Guidice had not acted improperly when issuing Hicks his permit. “The records check showed Hicks had no prior convictions. That’s an issue with the system, probably caused by errors made [over 20 years ago] when Hicks was first convicted … I could have done that records check myself and would have come up with the same exact results that she did.”

Berosh also said there was no truth to the rumors that Hicks’ permit application was unavailable for the preliminary hearing. “We didn’t even ask for a copy of the application for the preliminary hearing, it wasn’t germane to the case, we didn’t need it.” Berosh noted that County Detectives were able to obtain a copy of Hicks’ application after they learned he had prior convictions, and that his office filed additional charges after reviewing that document.

Courthouse sources say county officials were notified by the Sheriff’s Office that Guidice had been transferred because she “could no longer be trusted” after deputies allegedly found applications in her desk drawer they believed had been lost. Stephanie Guidice has worked as a clerk in the Sheriff’s Office for the past 17 years with no history of disciplinary actions against her.

The SEIU filed a grievance on behalf of Guidice against Sheriff George David yesterday. Union representative Al Smith is expected to meet with David sometime tomorrow.

District Attorney Anthony Berosh declined to comment when asked if County Detectives were investigating actions taken against Stephanie Guidice by the Sheriff’s Office. “But I will say this,” added Berosh. “My office will not tolerate any acts of witness intimidation or retaliation.” Guidice had been called as a witness for the prosecution in a preliminary hearing held for Hicks earlier this month.

Multiple Law Enforcement sources have told the Beaver Countian that several deputies within the Beaver County Sheriff’s Office are currently under criminal investigation for their handling of the original case against Larry Hicks.

Note: In the interest of full disclosure, the Beaver Countian has released a statement regarding an incident involving Sheriff George David and this reporter.

John Paul
John Paul is the founder of the Beaver Countian. He reports full-time for the site, specializing in investigative journalism with an emphasis on public corruption.

10
Reader Comments

avatar
Photo and Image Files
 
 
 
Audio and Video Files
 
 
 
Other File Types
 
 
 
8 Comment threads
2 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
7 Comment authors
spikeonline1JOBLESSjohn sherrilrubricthe hub Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest top voted
Notify of
say what
Guest
say what

Geez District Attorney, do you believe every thing the sheriff tells you? The sheriff will do what he wants when he wants to do it. After 17 years they find shit in her desk? What were they doing in her desk snooping anyways?Did anyone talk to her and ask her whats going on? Yes another set up people aren’t stupid. She’s been there a lot of years and never once was she written up, the sheriff always finds a way out. There’s more to this story than we know.

mvee
Member
mvee

The man behind the curtain says… Nothing to see here folks…. It’s all ok… Nothing at all going on…. 😆

Squirrel
Guest
Squirrel

Looks like the squirell has found his nuts! Good to see Tony B sticking up for Stephanie! :thumbsup:

Georgie needs to go back to Aliquippa and leave civilized people alone.

mvee
Member
mvee

Ouch! There are actually civilized people in Aliquippa. Really.

Of course, this does not include the Mayor, who’s greatest achievement is the creation of the aliquippa flag.

the hub
Guest
the hub

Just in the district attorney isn’t looking through smoke and mirrors.

Also Aliquippa mayor didn’t invent the city flag they where in the basement he found them when snooping around someone else did it he just re invented and got some press, don’t forget he did throw out first pitch at pirate game lol

rubric
Member
rubric

Removal of an elected official has been questioned here. The following is a good summary of PA state law regarding this. Go to the PA Constitution Articles if you wish more detail, verbatim, from the original Articles in the PA State Constitution. Google the “Pennsylvania Legislator’s Municipal Deskbook, Third Edition (2006)” if you want the full context of the excerpt below. One thought: allegations and opinions don’t count; convictions or legal judgments do. So, regardless of what you feel or say about it, the actions have to be real and legal.

Pennsylvania Legislator’s Municipal Deskbook, Third Edition (2006)

Pennsylvania General Assembly * Local Government Commission Page 75:

“How can a local elected official be removed from office? There
are some statutory and home rule charter provisions regarding
the recall or removal of elected officials. These provisions have
been deemed inoperative by our courts, which have ruled that
the Pennsylvania Constitution provides the exclusive grounds
for the removal of an elected official. Removal requires the
elected official’s conviction of an infamous crime or the common
law crime of misbehavior in office. The relevant
provisions of the Pennsylvania Constitution are Article II,
Section 7 (relating to ineligibility by criminal conviction of an
infamous crime), Article VI, Section 6 (relating to officers
liable to impeachment for misbehavior in office), and Article VI, Section 7 (relating to removal of civil officers for conviction of an infamous crime, misbehavior in office, or reasonable cause). These provide the exclusive methods for removing elected officials, including elected local officials, thereby nullifying contrary statutory provisions. In conformity with the Constitution, a court is authorized to remove an elected official
upon his or her conviction of an infamous crime.

Infamous Crime.

These include crimes such as forgery, perjury, embezzlement of public moneys, bribery, or like offenses. “[A] crime is infamous for purposes of Article II, Section 7, if its underlying facts establish a felony, a crimen falsi offense, or a like offense involving the charge of falsehood that affects the public administration of justice.”

Misbehavior in Office.

“Misbehavior in office” as an impeachable offense under the Pennsylvania
Constitution, Article VI, Section 6, is equivalent to the common-law crime of misconduct in office variously called misbehavior, misfeasance, or misdemeanor in office. It occurs when there is the breach of a positive statutory duty or the performance by a public official of a discretionary act with an improper or corrupt motive.

Reasonable Cause.

In addition to the “self-executing” removals upon conviction in court (i.e., sentencing)
of an infamous crime or misbehavior in office, as discussed above, or removal after impeachment pursuant to Article VI, Section 6 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, another means of removing an elected public officer, set forth in Article VI, Section 7, is removal “by the Governor for reasonable cause, after due notice and full hearing, on the address of two thirds of the Senate.” While discretion may reside in the Senate to find that various kinds of egregious behavior might constitute “reasonable cause” for
removal, one can speculate the likelihood that the Senate would use a “reasonable cause” standard that is similar or equivalent to that standard applied for removal due to misbehavior in office or conviction of an infamous crime.”

rubric
Member
rubric

Another relevant resource: http://bit.ly/YORlwy