Mr. Barrasse revealed for the first time what transpired at the hearing in the William Sartin murder case when he testified this month at Mr. Eagens hearing on a variety of criminal charges.

Mr. Barrasse and other participants in the Sartin hearing previously had refused to talk about it despite widespread speculation at the time that it involved a discussion about then-Judge Eagen being a focus of a grand jury investigation.

The Times-Tribune newspapers obtained a transcript of the hearing but it was severely redacted by the court, meaning names and critical portions of testimony were left out. The newspapers appealed to the state Superior Court, which eventually ruled they were not entitled to more.

Mr. Barrasses revelations about the hearing were prompted by the most unlikely of sources attorney William Costopoulos, counsel for Mr. Eagen, who originally sealed the transcript.

During cross-examination of Mr. Barrasse, Mr. Costopoulos asked the prosecutor about the controversial hearing.

Specifically, he wanted to know if the district attorney was asked whether a grand jury probe of the mishandling of estates of persons declared incapacitated under Mr. Eagens watch as Orphans Court judge had turned to the judge himself.

Mr. Barrasse said he was, in fact, asked whether the investigation had turned to Mr. Eagen. He recalled telling Mr. Eagen that he was a subject and not a target of the investigation at the time but that interviews still had to be completed.

The revelation is important because shortly after the hearing, Mr. Eagen, citing a potential conflict of interest, withdrew as the presiding judge in Mr. Sartins case. The potential conflict, he said, centered around a disciplinary report he had made about an attorney unconnected to the case.

Mr. Sartins attorney, James Walker, who previously refused to say what went on in the hearing, says he does not recall any discussion of a disciplinary matter. Rather, his recollection of the hearing closely paralleled that of Mr. Barrasse.

Mr. Walker said he wanted to know if the grand jury was looking at Mr. Eagen because of the gravity of the charges against his client.

If there was an ongoing investigation of the judge, the attorney said, it would be difficult for me not to explore that because the judge was presiding and Mr. Barrasse was prosecuting.

Mr. Walker said he brought the matter up during a hearing in Mr. Eagens chambers rather than open court because the allegations that Mr. Eagen was under investigation were unsubstantiated. He said he did not feel it was in the best interest of his client to discuss the issue publicly.

Mr. Eagen subsequently became a target of the grand jury probe and eventually was charged with bribery, obstructing justice and other charges relating to the estates probe.

During his cross-examination of Mr. Barrasse and other witnesses at Mr. Eagens hearing on Dec. 18, Mr. Costopoulos maintained his client was concerned about leaks from the grand jury investigation.

Grand juries are supposed to operate in secret and, among other things, Mr. Costopoulos wanted to know how Mr. Walker learned the jury had turned its attention to the judge.