A Cambria County judge ran afoul of the Constitution by conducting the mass trial and incarceration for 54 people held in contempt of court, a state appellate court concluded.

Cambria County Judge Tamara Bernstein jailed defendant Gregory Mauk for two weeks. Mauk, along with dozens of others, were held in contempt for failing to pay fines and were not given the opportunity to defend themselves against the charges, according to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, which vacated Mauk's sentence and said that Bernstein's ruling was fundamentally wrong.

“The trial court did not allow any defendants to be heard, to cross examine the court clerks who accused them of willful non-payment, or to have assistance of counsel,” Superior Court Judge Deborah A. Kunselman wrote in the court's opinion. “Indeed, the trial judge told them they would not 'have an opportunity to speak to [their] counsel' until they were 'downstairs'—i.e., after she had already sentenced them.”

Kunselman continued, “She also made clear that '[y]ou cannot address the court at this time.' This high-speed sentencing violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, for it has been said, '[T]he fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard.'”

Mauk was ordered to pay restitution after pleading guilty to theft-related charges in 2010. In 2016, he missed two of his payments and was summoned for a hearing. Mauk was then sent into a group contempt tribunal.

He and others were thrown in jail for failure to purge their contempt. Mauk was able to retain a lawyer, and on appeal, challenged the constitutionality of his imprisonment.

Prosecutors argued that Mauk was held in civil contempt and no process was due. They also claim his appeal was moot because he was freed 11 days into his sentence.

Kunselman disagreed, and said Bernstein had a duty to hold individual hearings for each defendant because the person's financial status may have changed since the last time she or he was in court.

“Cambria County's process for contempt missed this critical requirement entirely,” Kunselman said. “This mass incarceration presumed that all failures to pay arose from the alleged contemnors' deliberate disregard of the court's orders. While some untimely payments may have been attributable to such willful disregard, it does not follow that all unfulfilled legal obligations were willful.”

Kunselman added, “In short, Mr. Mauk never had a chance to explain the circumstances that prevented him from making timely payments.”

Mauk was represented by the ACLU, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment.