Federal court cases are usually dignified affairs. The trial of Dr. Cyril Wecht has injected an unusual degree of raucous repartee to the august setting. But it's a perfect storm: a defense lawyer channeling his famously loquacious defendant, a prosecution team loaded for bear and an acerbic judge with a short fuse.

---

There's a plaque on the wall in the lobby of the federal courthouse that speaks of lofty goals.

"The mission of the U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, is to preserve and enhance the rule of law while providing an impartial and economical resolution of legal proceedings within the court's jurisdiction, so as to protect individual rights and liberties, promote public trust and confidence in the judicial system, and to maintain judicial independence."

Most of the time, federal court meets that burden.

For those familiar with courtrooms only from Judge Judy, the O.J. Simpson trial or TV dramas, it's important to realize that those are state courts.

The federal system generally holds itself above the sordid, the tabloid and the bleatings of the media. TV cameras aren't allowed; the lawyers have to be certified to practice; the judges are appointed for life; the prosecutors don't talk about cases.

The whole operation is big on decorum.

Into this staid world comes United States v. Cyril Wecht, a big, clanking thing full of lights, whistles and bells.

"I've been here 30 years, and I've never seen anything like this," said one courthouse employee recently as she stood in a hallway lined by austere portraits of all the judges who have ever served the Western District.

---

Dr. Wecht is accused of misusing his office for public gain. The first trial ended in a mistrial last month after the jury deadlocked. The retrial is on hold pending a decision from an appellate court on his claim that another trial would subject him to double jeopardy.

Those are the basics.

But for longtime court observers, this case has been defined less by the sedate recitation of facts and statutes as by verbal sparring among the lead defense attorney, Jerry McDevitt; the lead prosecutor, Stephen Stallings; and the judge, Arthur J. Schwab.

It seems to have crossed a line beyond the usual theater of battling barristers into true vitriol.

Some say this kind of thing is becoming more common in the federal courts, as it is throughout society.

Several prominent judges have been vocal in denouncing it.

"Whether we like it or not, 'hard-ball tactics, 'scorched-earth' strategies, and so-called 'take no prisoners' litigation are not only in vogue these days, but often are required of lawyers in the aggressive pursuit of their clients' interests," wrote U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman of the District of Columbia in a widely cited 2002 essay.

U.S. District Judge Marvin Aspen of Chicago, who chaired a groundbreaking 1992 committee on civility, wrote recently that too many of today's lawyers seem to be taking their cues from the "machinations of TV programs and Hollywood films inaccurately sensationalizing trial practice."

But he was talking mostly about young lawyers, and usually in civil cases. The Wecht case features veterans in a criminal prosecution, yet the jousting has risen to an unprecedented level of shrillness.

---

"There is a worrisome general decline in civility in federal courts, but the Wecht prosecution is aberrational even for that," says William C. Snyder, a former federal prosecutor in Pittsburgh who left the office in 2004.

The Wecht docket is longer than 900 entries, the highest number of filings for a single defendant in the history of the district. The sheer volume is overwhelming enough.

But the back-and-forth legal briefs are filled with anger, sarcasm and personal attacks.

The judge lambastes the defense for creating a "media firestorm."

The prosecution rips the defense for writing "total fiction."

The defense attacks the prosecution for "brazen, palpable" misconduct and taunts the judge for "open hostility" to its side.

In one face-to-face exchange, Mr. McDevitt even challenged Judge Schwab's authority by pointing out that the judge doesn't have any criminal trial experience.

(Which is true: The judge was a civil lawyer, and one of the complaints against him is that he has improperly run the case using civil rather than criminal rules of procedure.)

---

Everyone in the courthouse knew when Dr. Wecht was indicted in 2006 that a trial could turn into a circus. A lawyer himself, Dr. Wecht is famous for his proclivity for grandiose discourse. He's also never been known to pass up an opportunity to comment -- on anything.

In addition, defense lawyers are often a bit over the top in high-profile cases. It's part of the game and usually tolerated because to crack down on it could undermine the "zealous advocacy" lawyers are supposed to provide for their clients.

Certainly no one familiar with federal cases is surprised by hardball defense, as when Mr. McDevitt accuses the government of harboring a "manifest hatred of Dr. Wecht" and suggests it is rooted in anti-Semitism.

"It is much more common coming from the defense," said Mr. Snyder. "We have seen that here, with Dr. Wecht stating that the FBI's tactics reminded him of the Nazis. In my view, comparisons to Nazis should be saved for racist genocidal killers, but it is not uncommon for defendants to make one.

"What is uncommon is for the prosecution and the judge to sink to the same level, as they have done here."

---

A law professor in New York, Mr. Snyder has a particularly keen perspective on all of this because he knows the players and the system.

He served under four U.S. attorneys here, most recently Mary Beth Buchanan, and was an assistant to Richard Thornburgh when he was attorney general. (Mr. Thornburgh happens to be one of Dr. Wecht's lawyers.)

Mr. Snyder is also a Republican who nonetheless thinks the appointments of Ms. Buchanan and Judge Schwab during the first term of President Bush were "unfortunate."

The two of them, he says, have allowed the Wecht case to become a spectacle, one that undermines the good work of most federal agents and prosecutors in this district.

"Just a few years ago we would respond to even the most outrageous defense claims with 'defendant is mistaken,' " he said. "Really strong language was to say 'patently false.' Now, Stallings and Buchanan reply that 'defendant is lying' or 'defense attorneys are lying.' It is inappropriate, but it can only be controlled from within the U.S. attorney's office. Certainly Judge Schwab cannot set a higher tone when he himself is the most acerbic and sarcastic judge I have ever seen in that courthouse."

Mr. Snyder isn't alone in that assessment. In the 2008 Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, lawyers criticized the judge as "volatile," "egotistical" and "imperious."

The appellate court that reviews his rulings, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has also been unkind. In a rare public rebuke in 2004, the court chastised him for copying a lawyer's opinion as his own, and in the Wecht case the judges have described some of his decisions as "inappropriate," "troublesome" and "strange and unsettling."

But the defense, it seems, has gotten under everyone's skin.

In one brief attacking the defense for its "pattern of mendacity" and "malicious public relations campaign," Mr. Stallings wrote that "we've finally reached the point where we can't believe anything these lawyers say anymore."

The judge, under constant attack by Mr. McDevitt, has also issued lengthy rebuttals defending himself, which courthouse regulars consider a product of his insecurity.

---

In essence, the case boils down to what Mr. Snyder calls the "unlucky convergence of personalities and egos" -- a tenacious defendant, an ambitious U.S. attorney and a prickly judge.

"Dr. Wecht has a long history of outrageous statements," said Mr. Snyder. "U.S. Attorney Buchanan shows far worse judgment than her predecessors. Long before this case, Mr. Stallings was bombastic and Mr. McDevitt was combative. Judge Schwab had a reputation for being acerbic -- if not outright obnoxious -- long before he became a judge."

Of course, this perfect storm would not have developed with any defendant but Dr. Wecht, whose off-the-cuff eloquence masks a grittier side seldom seen in public.

His lawyer, while a partner at the tony law firm K&L/Gates, seems to reflect that street mentality. A former Marine officer whose other clients include World Wrestling Entertainment, Mr. McDevitt is more the cage-fighter to Mr. Stallings' poised middleweight.

Yet despite the clever references to Alexander Hamilton, Napoleon and Jupiter's Great Red Spot that sprinkle his prose, Mr. Stallings can himself be a legal pit bull in court.

He certainly won't back down. Although federal prosecutors deny a win-at-all-costs mentality -- a tired accusation by Mr. McDevitt and many lawyers -- it's true that they don't lose very often. The conviction rate in federal court hovers around 98 percent.

---

No one can predict Dr. Wecht's fate. Maybe there won't be a second trial. Maybe Dr. Wecht will end up in jail. Maybe the case will drag on so long that Ms. Buchanan will step down with the new administration, as is the tradition, and the whole thing will go away.

But this much seems certain -- the legal fireworks will continue.