The attorney for former Lakeland school teacher Matthew Stevens wants to interview suspended Scott Twp. Police Chief James Romano to determine if any information in a case against the chief is pertinent to his client's defense.
Attorney Joseph Caraciolo of Harrisburg recently filed a motion seeking court permission to interview Chief Romano, one of the officers who investigated allegations Mr. Stevens had sexual contact with a former student on numerous occasions in 2012.
Mr. Stevens was charged in February with institutional sexual assault, unlawful contact with a minor and corruption of a minor after the woman, then 18, came forward to allege she developed a sexual relationship with him at age 17, when she was a senior at Lakeland High School.
Two months after Mr. Stevens' arrest, Chief Romano was charged with intimidating a witness and other offenses for allegedly having sex with a woman who is a potential witness against Mr. Stevens. The 20-year-old woman came forward following Mr. Stevens' arrest to allege she, too, had a sexual relationship with him while a student at Lakeland. Mr. Romano is awaiting trial in that case.
The Times-Tribune does not identify victims of sexual assault.
In a reply to the motion filed in the Stevens case, Lackawanna County Deputy District Attorney Jennifer McCambridge said she does not believe Mr. Caraciolo has any legal authority to interview Chief Romano, but she will leave that decision up to Judge Vito Geroulo, who is presiding over the case.
It's not clear whether the woman in Chief Romano's case will be called to testify at Mr. Stevens' trial. In her reply, Ms. McCambridge said if the woman is called, her testimony would be used as character evidence against Mr. Stevens. The admissibility of her testimony is a matter that will be decided at trial, should prosecutors seek to call her, Ms. McCambridge said.
The interview of Chief Romano is among several pre-trial motions Mr. Caraciolo filed. He is also seeking to dismiss the charges and to suppress a recorded phone conversation between the victim and Mr. Stevens in which he allegedly made incriminating statements.
In the dismissal motion, Mr. Caraciolo claims Mr. Stevens' right to due process was violated because police have not provided specific dates on which the sexual contacts allegedly occurred, therefore he cannot prepare a proper defense. The affidavit says the offenses occurred on several occasions between January and September 2012, but does not provide specific dates for each offense.
In her reply, Ms. McCambridge said prior courts have said police are not required to cite specific dates in cases, such as this, that constitute a continuous course of criminal conduct over a period of time.
In the suppression motion, Mr. Caraciolo alleges the recording violated Mr. Stevens' constitutional rights. Ms. McCambridge contends the recording was legal because state law requires only one party give permission for police to intercept a conversation. The alleged victim signed a form consenting to the interception.
Judge Geroulo is reviewing the motions.