The Mercer County League of Women Voters and The Herald posed five questions to the eight candidates for two Mercer County Common Pleas court judgeships. The following are their answers to one of the five questions. The other answers will be published in the Wednesday through Thursday editions of The Herald.

Describe the most significant local criminal, civil, or municipal case in which you were an advocate.

   » CHRISTOPHER ST. JOHN: First-degree murder cases. I have worked on many homicide cases over the last 19 years. Several were tried before a jury. Each case was very significant to the victim's family and friends, as well as to the accused. The most recent murder trial occurred last year when a mentally ill young man strangled his mother with a towel when she tried to stop him from committing suicide. This case involved a complicated mental deficiency defense and the close legal question of whether he could formulate the specific intent to kill in light of his mental defects. The jury convicted and he hung himself in prison with a bed sheet shortly thereafter. Murder trials provide good preparation for serving as a judge.

   » JOHN REED: I tried the first case in Pennsylvania protecting the rights of mobile home buyers under the Mobile Home Titling Act. In that case, a person sold a mobile home to my client under a written sales agreement but failed to sign over the certificate of title. Later, the seller's creditor asserted a lien against the mobile home, claiming it was still owned by the seller. The Court had to decide which document established ownership: the certificate of title or the sales agreement. Although no previous case had answered this question, I was successful in having the Court agree that the sales agreement transferred title to the buyer and that the seller no longer had any interest that could be claimed by his creditor.

   » WILLIAM G. MCCONNELL, JR.: In March of 1999, I acted as sole defense counsel in a five-day criminal jury trial presided over by the Honorable Michael J. Wherry. The case involved the armed robbery of two pizza restaurants located in the cities of Sharon and Hermitage. I represented a 21-year-old hearing-impaired defendant who was accused of participating in the robberies as a get-away driver. This case is significant not only because of the seriousness of the crimes involved, but also because the case raised a number of important and unique legal issues, including questions involving unlawful arrest and the interrogation of a deaf suspect. Several legal issues raised in this case were appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

   » STEPHEN J. MIRIZIO: Every case which I advocated, either in the Court of Common Pleas or other form was significant to me, but a case which is personally significant given the theory advocated was the expungement of a criminal record. The significance of the case was the application of concepts of due process as opposed to the limited remedy available within the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act. The argument and theory had merit as the petition was granted and later affirmed by the Superior Court when appealed by the Commonwealth. The theory advocated in that case was cited in subsequent cases which eventually lead to legislative amendments liberalizing the criteria for expungement of criminal records under similar circumstances.

   » MARGARET T. LUCAS: Due to the very personal nature of my practice, I would prefer not to describe any individual case. That said the most significant matters I deal with are those involving the custody of children. I have tried many custody cases during my career and have taken many appeals to the Superior Court. Despite this, I consider my advocacy to be best displayed in those cases I do not try. My ability to bring parties to common ground, especially in family law matters, is a skill I have worked hard to develop. This ability would continue to serve me well on the bench in both criminal and civil matters. A settlement saves the county both time and money and is always a more acceptable outcome to the litigants.

   » JAMES M. GOODWIN: Every case is significant, not only to those involved but also to our system of justice. In my practice, I have tried a number of cases. The cases that I have tried that seem to receive the most publicity would be homicide cases. I have been either lead counsel or co-counsel in a number of these cases, including one in which the death penalty was sought.

   » JAMES NEVANT: Defining significant as far reaching and local as being western Pennsylvania, I represented a fellow Mercer Countian against a major international corporation that had terminated her, we averred, because of age, gender and disability. We litigated in the federal court in Pittsburgh. The corporation attempted to dismiss it because my client refused a mandatory arbitration which employees had to agree to and pay for. The issue had never been addressed in this federal court district; finding it unconscionable to impose fees on the employee, who would otherwise have had access to the court system, the federal judge ruled in our favor. Result: The corporation changed its policy. Thousands of working people benefited by a brave Mercer Countian whom I was proud to represent.

   » JOANN M. JOFERY: The obvious choice for my most significant local case is the petition of the citizens of Wheatland to secede from Farrell School District. Since this case is currently under appeal, it is inappropriate for me to comment on it in detail. I mention it because it is such an unusual case and it shows the breadth of my practice and my experience. I successfully argued, to the Superior Court, a client's right to have a court hearing before Domestic Relations could arbitrarily withhold money from child support to correct the agency's mistake in overpayment. In 1993, I argued to the Superior Court, the drug task force jurisdiction case cited by the District Attorney's office as the best example of the issue.