'A matter of honor' for Eagen

The former Lackawanna County judge was speaking in his East Mountain home the day after a Dauphin County jury acquitted him of taking kickbacks, but found he obstructed the investigation into them.

"I pursued it and will continue to pursue it because it is a matter of honor," said Mr. Eagen, who was rejected by the voters for another 10-year term when he was named a target of the investigation shortly before the November 1997 election.

Mr. Eagen was stoic about the outcome of his seven-day trial in Harrisburg, even though he did not emerge completely vindicated.

"I can live with the obstruction," he said, "but I wouldn't be able to live with myself with a bribery conviction. My major concern was showing the people of Northeastern Pennsylvania that I didn't take bribes in my capacity as a judge."

And Mr. Eagen thinks the obstruction conviction will disappear somewhere in the appeals process.

"There is something inherently contradictory in a verdict that says you didn't do anything, but says you obstructed an investigation," he said.

Attorney William Costopoulos, who defended Mr. Eagen, will first ask presiding Judge Barry Feudale to dismiss the obstruction charge. If that fails, an appeal will be taken to the state's Superior Court.

The process could be long, but Mr. Eagen has been practicing patience since October 1997 when he was forced to take administrative leave after the target story hit the media. He will continue working on a book about Pennsylvania business law and volunteering at Meals on Wheels and the American Red Cross.

Finances are no problem, he said, because he is receiving a judicial pension based on 16 years of service -- 10 as judge, six as district justice -- and full benefits.

Both the pension and the benefits could disappear if the obstructing charge is not dismissed somewhere in the appeals process.

The possibility produces some second-guessing.

"I could have walked away from all this in the fall of 1997 or the spring of 1998 by signing an agreement with (District Attorney Michael) Barrasse saying his actions during the investigation were correct," Mr. Eagen observed.

The former judge's antipathy toward the district attorney was not abated by the verdict, because he still feels he was unfairly charged.

"You wonder how the case went this far with the evidence they had," Mr. Eagen said.

He pointed out he was never interviewed about the kickbacks described by Phillip Bosha, the prosecution's star witness who was called a "thief and a liar" by both the prosecution and defense. Evidence at the trial refuted Mr. Bosha's story about when and where three of the five payoffs were made.

When first asked in April 1997 by Mr. Barrasse for his resignation, Mr. Eagen said, he was told that Mr. Bosha had passed two lie detector tests and there was a mystery witness who put him at the scene of one of the payoffs.

The former judge said the polygraphs must have been inaccurate because Mr. Bosha's story was contradicted on key points. He added the scene-placing witness never appeared.

"Obviously, perjury charges must be brought against Bosha either by the Dauphin County district attorney or the attorney general," Mr. Eagen said. "I don't think there is any question that he lied."

He said he has nothing against the jury, which convicted him on the obstructing count while dismissing nine others, or Patrick Blessington, the deputy attorney general who prosecuted him.

Mr. Eagen said the jury was probably confused by the law on obstruction and the amount of information presented to them during the trial.

"I received a fair trial," he said.

Subscribe to The Times-Tribune