The judge assigned to hear the charges against former Allegheny County Coroner Dr. Cyril H. Wecht will remain on the case.

That was the ruling of a three-member panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals today.

		Online document Read the ruling from the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the Cyril Wecht case as an Adobe Acrobat file.

Defense attorneys for Dr. Wecht filed a petition asking the court to remove U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab, claiming that he was biased against their client. The court denied the request.

Dr. Wecht is accused of using his public office for private gain.

In addition, in its ruling released today -- seven months after oral argument in Philadelphia -- the appeals court found that the disciplinary reports regarding lead FBI investigator Brad Orsini, related to his actions in another case, can be released.

The U.S. attorney's office had filed the reports under seal with Judge Schwab last year. Later, the judge ruled that they should be unsealed, but he stayed his own opinion pending a decision by the appeals court.

The reports may not yet be released, though, pending a decision by federal prosecutors to have the decision reviewed by the entire 3rd Circuit bench.

In the last matter before the appeals court, local Pittsburgh media, including the Post-Gazette, asked the judges to find against a local district court rule that prohibits attorneys from discussing pending cases with reporters.

The appeals court panel found in favor of the media and vacated the court's local rule.

The three appeals court judges were unanimous in their decisions regarding the unsealing of Agent Orsini's disciplinary records and the local rule.

However, with regard to the decision to remove Judge Schwab from Dr. Wecht's case, the decision was split 2-1. Judges Julio Fuentes, who wrote the majority opinion, and Michael Fisher, voted in favor of leaving Judge Schwab in place.

Judge Myron H. Bright, who is from the 8th Circuit but was sitting on the panel, dissented.

"(This) opinion does not suggest that the district judge harbors actual bias in this case," he wrote. "He is undoubtedly bright, hard-working and has sincerely attempted thus far to administer justice in a highly publicized, hard-fought case litigated by experienced cousel. Yet, as this court has stated before, that is not the test for recusal. The circumstances of this case . . . compel the conclusion that a reasonable person, with knowledge of all the facts, would conclude that the district judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

More details in tomorrow's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.