To those who never understood what was wrong with the Bush administration purging U.S. attorneys around the country, we offer the example of former Allegheny County Coroner Cyril H. Wecht, whose lawyers seized on suspicions of politically inspired prosecutions to argue that his indictment should be dismissed.

For a man who has been spent much of his career railing against political enemies, the news coming out of Washington must have seemed like a lifeline thrown to him in an angry sea, especially as his would-be nemesis in the case, U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan, is a favorite of the Bush Justice Department.

Not so fast with the dramatic rescue. Earlier this week U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab ruled that he would not hold a hearing to determine if Dr. Wecht was the victim of selective prosecution. Moreover, at his trial set for Jan. 28, Dr. Wecht's attorneys are forbidden even to mention the idea as they defend him against charges that he mixed public and private business in the execution of his duties.

It may seem harsh, but this ruling is sensible. The free-ranging suspicion of federal prosecutions let loose in Washington wafts like a bad odor, but odors are hard to pin down. Judge Schwab found that claims about unprosecuted local Republicans (in contrast to notable Democrats who were indicted) were vague.

Most embarrassingly for Dr. Wecht, the judge pointed out in his opinion -- a part labeled "Defendant's New Conspiracy Theory" -- that the ex-coroner had earlier claimed that his prosecution was the fault of Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr., who, of course, is a Democrat.

With Dr. Wecht, of course, it's always been any conspiracy theory in a storm. But even in the absence of a defendant savoring a dish of paranoia du jour, Judge Schwab would have caused great mischief by granting this hearing and dismissing the charges altogether. It would have been a free pass to any Democrat in office to do anything for the rest of Mr. Bush's term. While it's bad enough that the administration has shaken public confidence in the administration of justice, its folly should not be allowed to wreck it entirely.

Stripped of these distractions, the trial can proceed based on the facts, which should tell whether this prosecution is frivolous or not. Dr. Wecht beat similar charges in 1981 and, then as now, the public had a strong interest in hearing the facts of whether a public office had been abused for private gain.

At the end of the day, the facts speak for themselves. Judge Schwab was right to focus attention squarely back onto them.