Exactly what caused Butler County Judge George Hancher to prohibit the public and media from accompanying jurors, attorneys, the defendant and Hancher to the murder scene that was at the center of Johnathan Tusa's homicide trial is not known.

Tusa was on trial for killing his wife and unborn child on Dec. 12, 2004, outside their Penn Township home. He was found guilty of first-degree murder Thursday night.

In imposing the ban, Hancher turned his back on provisions of the federal and state constitutions protecting the right of the public and press to attend such proceedings.

Even though the ban might have been built upon a foundation of good intentions, it nevertheless was troubling. As Teri Henning, general counsel for the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association, noted following the judge's move, "When the jury views a crime scene, the courtroom is temporarily moved to this location and the courts should make accommodations for the public and the media to attend and observe."

Following Monday's interruption to the public's and media's access to the trial, Sheriff Dennis Rickard said Hancher's order indicated no one other than those actually involved in the case were allowed past a roadblock set up at the intersection of Airport and Winters roads.

That ban included the media and spectators.

While the police had no choice but to obey the order, there were ways for Hancher to grant access without jeopardizing the trial.

Hancher erred in closing that portion of the trial, and hopefully he will someday soon explain the reasoning that compelled him to make that decision.

Other judges should follow the lead of Pennsylvania Superior Court Judge Joan Orie Melvin and refuse the 11 percent pay raise that the General Assembly enacted in July 2005.Melvin has filed a lawsuit in Commonwealth Court contending that there is nothing in a state Supreme Court ruling that requires her to accept a raise she doesn't want.The raise increased her annual salary to $162,100 from $145,658.Judges' salaries were increased as part of the infamous July 7, 2005, middle-of-the-night General Assembly proceedings that also produced big raises for state lawmakers and executive branch officials.Amid relentless public outcry, lawmakers repealed the raises last November, but the state Supreme Court reinstated judges' raises last month.The Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts has told Melvin she can give back the money in question, but that she would be taxed as though she accepted it, and also would receive a bump in her pension.Melvin's lawsuit says nothing in the high court's ruling makes it mandatory that she accept the raise. Defendants in the lawsuit are the state Treasurer's Office and the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts.The General Assembly's pay-raise action, which came without notice to the public and without public debate, should not have been looked upon kindly by any judge in the commonwealth. It was action unbecoming anyone purportedly in office to serve the public.Melvin's decision to opt for the lawsuit delivers that kind of message, and she should be allowed to refuse the raise without any negative tax implications or any unwanted impact on her future pension benefits.

If more people followed the example of a 10-year-old Monaca, Beaver County, boy, there would be fewer traffic fatalities on the nation's roadways.According to state police, the boy refused rides from both his father and mother because they had been drinking and because his father struck a guardrail while trying to light a marijuana pipe.The boy had been riding with his father, Kenneth Sutton, at the time that the incident with the guardrail occurred, but after the accident he would not get back into the car.His mother, Paula Sutton, who was traveling in a different car, tried to take the boy home, but he also refused a ride from her because of her intoxication. Instead, he began walking along the highway, Route 60, where a passing motorist saw him and called police.Kenneth Sutton was charged with driving under the influence and child endangerment. Paula Sutton was charged with driving under the influence.If people refused to ride with an intoxicated driver, there would be thousands of fewer fatalities on the nation's highways each year.It's unfortunate that the boy had to subject himself to another danger — the possibility that he could have been struck by a car or picked up by someone with less-than-good intentions — as a result of his correct decision not to ride with a drunk driver.