Former state Sen. Raphael Musto plans to plead not guilty to new corruption charges, according to court documents.

Musto is scheduled to be arraigned Wednesday afternoon in federal court in Wilkes-Barre, but has waived his right  to appear for the proceedings, documents filed in his case say.

Attorneys for the 84-year-old Musto indicate they will be present for the arraignment on charges related to a superseding indictment filed against the former lawmaker last month.

Read the indictment

The attorneys, John Riley and William Murray, wrote a letter to U.S. Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick, explaining that Musto is in ill health and his appearance wasn’t necessary.

After years of delays, Musto’s trial is slated to begin Jan. 6.

His attorneys have filed motions, asking U.S. District Judge Richard A. Caputo to delay Musto’s trial due to his deteriorating health. Many days he is “bedridden or functionally unable to cope with daily functions,” the attorneys said.

Musto, a longtime Democratic state senator from Pittston Township, was indicted shortly after his retirement in November 2010 on three counts of fraud, two counts of bribery and two counts of making false statements to investigators. A grand jury alleged that Musto, while a senator, accepted $40,000 in cash and free construction services in exchange for supporting state funding for development projects. Last month, Musto was hit with a superseding indictment that alleged he also solicited and accepted kickbacks from a government vendor for decades in exchange for political favors.

Musto’s attorneys say the new charges, dating back to 1990, harm their ability to adequately prepare for a looming trial.

“The defense must now attempt to prepare for a trial in five weeks with a client already suffering periods of extreme fatigue, cognitive impairment, and memory loss,” his attorneys wrote.

U.S. Attorney Peter Smith also filed court documents, requested a hearing where the defense would have to prove Musto’s claims he is not competent to stand trial.

“The defendant was a longstanding elected official who has been accused of a breach of the public trust,” Smith wrote. “The court appropriately noted that others similarly situated in the community have been charged and convicted of similar conduct. This factor weighs in favor of denial of the motion.”

bkalinowski@citizensvoice.com, 570-821-2055 @cvbobkal