KINSMAN — An appeals court has reinstated potentially damning evidence in the case of a 77-year-old Kinsman woman charged with drug offenses.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Cincinnati, on Friday overturned a district court judge’s decision that evidence collected by U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency agents in an interview with Jean F. Panak of Delin Thomas Road be suppressed.

However, the court also stated that it’s not immediately clear why it makes good policy to prosecute Mrs. Panak.

U.S. District Court Judge Solomon Oliver Jr., Youngstown, gave this background of the case:

DEA agents noticed Mrs. Panak’s employer, Dr. Donald J. Chionchio, who had a practice on Main Street in Kinsman, was the largest purchaser of the pain killer hydrocodone — sold as Vicodin — in the northern district of Ohio in 2004 and had bought a significant amount of the drug in 2005.

DEA agents made an unannounced visit to Chionchio’s practice on Feb. 8, 2006, and he admitted that he was prescribing the drug for himself and abusing it and that he frequently distributed it to others without performing medical evaluations.

Chionchio, 80, of State Street, Kinsman, said he instructed Mrs. Panak to give patients drugs as long as they had the money for them.

Chionchio surrendered his DEA license and agents seized his drug log books, which were filled out by Mrs. Panak, and the drugs he had in the office.

Chionchio was charged with drug trafficking and conspiracy. He pleaded guilty Sept. 29, 2006, and was sentenced May 30, 2007, to 6 months’ home detention and 18 months’ probation.

A week after the visit to Chionchio’s office, agents visited Mrs. Panak at her home unannounced and interviewed her for 45 minutes. According to a DEA report released by the defense, Mrs. Panak admitted knowing that Chionchio was dispensing too much Vicodin; it was wrong to do so; and she suspected patients were selling their medications or using their medical conditions to get it, but that she did not report the alleged wrongdoing to anyone.

Mrs. Panak was charged June 19, 2007, with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute hydrocodone and possession of and distribution of hydrocodone.

In a motion to suppress the statements Mrs. Panak made to DEA agents, her attorney, William L. Summers of Cleveland, described Mrs. Panak as an unsophisticated widow who had lived in a small town all her life, had been Chionchio’s only employee for more than 20 years, and had no significant contact with law enforcement prior to the visit by agents. During that visit, agents had her “cornered, alone in her home,” Summers said.

He said Mrs. Panak’s statements were involuntary and she was not informed of her rights, including her right not to talk to the agents. The agents walked into her home after she opened the door without her permission and scared her by telling her her boss was going to jail, Summers said.

When Mrs. Panak said she did not want to answer agents’ questions, they said it was in her best interest to do so, Summers said. He argued that Mrs. Panak was in agent custody at the time of the interview.

Oliver found Mrs. Panak’s testimony “completely believable” and took her side on disputes of facts between her recollection and the agents’.

Oliver concluded that Mrs. Panak was in custody when she was interviewed because the agents had information prior to the interview “of the type which was used to pursue charges against her.”

The agents never told Mrs. Panak she was free to leave or that she did not have to speak to them and ignored her statement that she did not want to speak to them, Oliver said.

A three-judge panel of the appeals court said Mrs. Panak was not in custody during the interview and did not need to be informed of her rights.

The court said the fact the interview occurred in Mrs. Panak’s home gives weight to the agents’ arguments. Most in-home interviews by police are non-custodial, the panel said. People feel most secure and in control in their homes, even when the police are there, the court said.

The interview had none of the trappings of arrests, such as guns, handcuffs and raised voices, and the agents did not threaten Mrs. Panak with arrest or tell her she was in trouble, the court said.

The fact that Mrs. Panak was not told she could remain silent supports her contention, but is “one factor among many,” the court said.

Although there are differences of opinion over whether Mrs. Panak invited the agents in — she acknowledged “letting” them in — the agents did not force their way in, the court said.

Although the court granted the government’s request to reinstate the suppressed evidence, it also posed a question for prosecutors:

“Why did the government indict a 76-year-old, part-time dental secretary who, whatever she did or did not do in working for Dr. Chionchio, cannot plausibly be characterized as the key culprit in this alleged crime? There will be time enough to answer that question on remand.”