Marc W. Nuzzo, an attorney facing criminal charges in a fatal crash in McKean County, is appealing an order filed by presiding Senior Judge John Leete.

In January, a lengthy hearing was held before Leete regarding several issues in the case.

The judge filed an order in February with his decisions. Earlier this month, Attorney James P. Miller, representing Nuzzo, entered a notice of appeal in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

The charges stem from an incident on Sept. 5, 2018, when Nuzzo was one of two drivers involved in a head-on collision on U.S. Route 219 that injured several people. The other driver, Stanley “Guy” Austin, died in the hospital about two weeks after the crash.

Prosecutors allege that the crash happened because Nuzzo was driving south in the northbound lane, trying to pass another vehicle. Charges against him include aggravated assault by vehicle and homicide by vehicle.

Leete’s order addressed eight issues.

The judge denied a defense motion to disqualify District Attorney Stephanie Vettenburg-Shaffer from the case, and granted a commonwealth motion to quash an outstanding subpoena that asked for electronic communication of Shaffer’s from around the time the case was filed against Nuzzo.

The defense had asserted that Shaffer timed the filing of charges against Nuzzo to help her win a campaign for re-election in the primary election, and defense attorneys were seeking evidence of impropriety in her communications.

“Looking at all of the evidence presented, the court finds no conflict of interest on the part of the Commonwealth, nor any evidence of manipulation or wrongdoing,” Leete stated in his order.

Leete explained that the commonwealth argued in the motion to quash that this type of discovery is beyond the scope of the rules regarding pretrial discovery and inspection. The commonwealth also argued that the subpoena “is overbroad, burdensome, vague and oppressive, and serves no legitimate purpose. The court agrees, given its resolution of the defense motion to recuse the district attorney,” he wrote.

Also, Leete denied a defense motion for change of venue or venire, but left open the ability for the defense to “renew the motion if it proves difficult to select a fair and impartial jury.”

He stated, “Under our caselaw, a change of venire or venue is not required unless defendant encounters actual prejudice in the process of jury selection.” However, he further explained, “the law also recognizes in certain instances, publicity may be so intense, or inflammatory, so as to saturate the public and any prospective jury pool. The evidence thus far presented does not rise to that level.”

Leete granted motions for discovery by both the defense and the commonwealth. The commonwealth was ordered to complete the bill of particulars within 15 days of the order, and the defense was ordered to respond to the commonwealth’s discovery request within 45 days.

The judge denied a defense motion to permit ex parte discovery under seal, which Leete explained was the defense seeking “to explore various theories of defense without the Commonwealth’s knowledge or participation.”

Leete said the defense cites several other cases that are “essentially irrelevant to the present case” and added that “nothing brought forth by the defense indicates why this case should be treated differently than other criminal cases.”

Leete granted a commonwealth motion to dismiss the defense petition “for a Rule to Show Cause why a hearing on habeas corpus should not issue,” saying the defense was not specific enough in its petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

“Such a shotgun approach to habeas corpus as the defense has presented must result in a dismissal at this time,” Leete wrote.

Leete granted a motion for a pretrial conference.

At the hearing in January, which lasted five hours, little mention was made of the allegations against Nuzzo.

In his explanation of why he granted the motion to quash the subpoena, Leete tried to bring the focus back on the criminal matter: “In the end analysis, a finder of fact will have to determine exactly what happened back on September 5, 2018, and further determine whether or not violations of law have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This is what this case is ultimately about.

“The motion of the defense, as well as its plan to call the district attorney as a witness, would serve no valid purpose beyond delay and harassment,” Leete added. “The relief sought by defendant amounts to nothing more than a classic fishing expedition as defendant has specified that its requests have nothing to do with the actual charges.”

The case docket indicates that Nuzzo, in an document filed by Miller, is asking for reconsideration of the following: the motion to disqualify Shaffer, the motion to quash the subpoena for Shaffer’s electronic communications, the motion for ex parte discovery and the commonwealth’s motion for discovery.

The appeal docket sheet indicates that the next event due date is June 1.

Nuzzo remains free, having posted 5% of $100,000 bail.