I featured Judge Marc Lovecchio in a LION (Leaders In Our Neighborhood) article several weeks ago, and not long after I received an email from a reader who stated that they seriously disagreed with my article honoring the judge. The substance of the argument was based on a recent ruling on his part, releasing a drug-dealing mother who was not just being released but even given her child back, whom she had abused. This was all based on an article in the local daily newspaper entitled, “Judge: Drug dealer can live with allegedly abused baby.”

The article even stated that the district attorney’s office disagreed with the judge’s ruling.

My faithful reader reiterated the points in the newspaper article, and she was not alone. Judge Lovecchio was roasted in local social media posts, radio talk shows, and letters to the editor of the local paper. It would all have been justified if it only had been true — which it was not. The facts were off in more ways than could be named. The woman had been regularly tested, attended all required counseling sessions, and had secured employment. She intended to live with her parents, who had custody of the child in compliance with the county’s Children and Youth Department. All parties had agreed on supervised bail for the mother and her living arrangements, with the strict conditions warning that positive testing would result in her return to incarceration.

Those who might subscribe to conspiracy theories might question the timing of an anti-judge article just days before this judge was to face the voters for retention. If that was the intention, it failed miserably, as Judge Lovecchio received an 83 percent retention vote, one of the highest in the Commonwealth for Court of Common Pleas judges.

By a touch of irony, I was interviewing the judge concerning these matters right before he was about to have a hearing for this same woman that the article referred to, and I was invited to sit in. Judge Lovecchio opened the hearing by referring to the article and offered the defendant the opportunity to have a new judge, given that any ruling against her could be seen as retributive. Neither the defendant nor counsel wished to have a different judge. The district attorney’s case was rather cut and dry. The bail officer testified that the defendant had tested positive. The defense made a good effort of questioning the integrity of the tests, but the judge wasn’t buying what they were selling. He revoked bail, and the defendant was returned to county prison.

After the hearing, Judge Lovecchio and I discussed the case again, and I brought up some observations of his actions on the bench that seemed atypical of his normal personality. He explained that these were intentional, that his primary focus is to maintain impartiality, and focus on facts and not emotion.

In departing, I reminded Judge Lovecchio that my first jury duty in Lycoming County was one he was presiding, and I commented to him that what I remember best of all from that experience several years ago was the instructions to the jury that seemed to take almost a half an hour. He remarked that these were all mandated, and he has been at the forefront of changing that procedure. He then showed me a letter from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania naming him to the Criminal Procedural Rules Committee for a five-year term, one of only two in the state. He now had the opportunity to do something about those tedious instructional requirements to jurors.

There are still folks who believe Judge Lovecchio is a bad judge, and given that this is America, a person is entitled to their own opinion. But he has received recognition from the highest levels of the judiciary, and those who come before him on the bench will attest that he is as fair as justice allows.

But this does not make him or any of the county judges immune to criticism, nor should it, if it is justified. But as Mark Twain was said to have quoted, “A lie travels around the globe while the truth is putting on its shoes.” Lycoming County is very fortunate to have the quality of judges that are found here, and those who question their integrity should back it up with facts and not innuendo.

Read this week’s LION to follow the report of the judge’s participation in an important national conference that could have long-term significance to our area.