Pa. Supreme Court Declares Statewide Judicial Emergency
The move also allows courts to suspend any actions allowed under the judicial administrative law, including temporarily closing court facilities.
March 16, 2020 at 02:24 PM
5 minute read
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has granted a statewide general judicial emergency, allowing president judges in the counties to potentially restrict and close court facilities.
The Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts announced the state of emergency in a press release Monday afternoon. The announcement said the state of emergency will remain in effect through April 14. Shortly after the announcement was made, the justices entered a five-page per curiam order further detailing what the declaration will mean for courts and outlining its reasoning for the move.
"The court deems it necessary for the Pennsylvania Judiciary to consider—on a district-by-district basis—the appropriate measures to be taken to safeguard the health and safety of court personnel, court users, and members of the public," the order said.
As of late Monday afternoon, at least eight court systems, including Philadelphia and Luzerne, had requested a declaration of judicial emergency.
According to the order, the move allows courts to suspend time calculations and deadlines, subject to constitutional restrictions, and authorizes the use of video- and teleconferencing to conduct court proceedings. The move also allows courts to suspend any actions allowed under the judicial administrative law, including temporarily closing court facilities.
The order, however, said that nothing should impact a defendants' speedy trial rights, which are outlined under Rule of Criminal Procedure 600.
"Nothing in this order or its local implementation shall affect a criminal defendant's right to a speedy trial under the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions, albeit that the circumstances giving rise to this order and the suspension may be relevant to the constitutional analysis," the order said.
The declaration was granted at a time when courts across the state are closing, or limiting access to court services in an effort to combat the spread of coronavirus. On March 13, both the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas announced they were suspending jury trials and other court services, and on Monday the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas followed suit. The Chester County Court of Common Pleas also announced it would be postponing all trials not already scheduled, among other things.
The Pennsylvania Bar Association has also announced it has canceled or postponed several events, including the civil litigation section Philadelphia regional dinner and the women in the profession spring conference, and will teleconference its upcoming Committee/Section Day.
PBA president Anne John said the state legal system is in "uncharted territory," and the high court's order reflects an effort to keep Pennsylvanians safe, while keeping in mind their need to have access to the courts.
"Everyone's just doing what is best under the circumstances to protect lawyers, colleagues, citizens and members of the community at large," she said. "Our constitutions, the Pennsylvania and of course the United States Constitution, are the bedrock of our democracy and I'm confident that we will navigate this and that our constitutions will continue to guide us and to protect our system of justice."
On the western side of the state, Washington County Court of Common Pleas had announced it would begin turning to video- and teleconferencing services to handle a range of cases, and Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas had announced it would not be calling new jurors through at least the end of the week.
The moves, however, have not come without some criticisms.
After Montgomery County President Judge Thomas DelRicci asked the Supreme Court for a declaration of judicial emergency in the county, the justices largely granted the motion, but did not make an immediate ruling on the request to suspend Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 600, which grants defendants the right to a speedy trial. Instead the justices held the request under advisement, and asked interested parties to object by no later than noon Monday.
Both the ACLU of Pennsylvania and the Defenders Association of Philadelphia filed objections, calling for a balanced approach and arguing that the justices needed to clarify what it was granting so the emergency status could not be applied overly broadly as courts begin to seek similar emergency declarations.
"The current order potentially supersedes both rule-based and constitutional requirements for how legal proceedings of all kinds are required to operate. This gives the judicial district the right to make alterations to those rules unilaterally; and in some instances could result in abrogating constitutional rights," the Defenders Association said in a brief filed by assistant defender Aaron Marcus, chief of the appeals unit. "While flexibility is desirable during an emergency, ambiguity in an order providing that much unilateral authority is dangerous."
The brief filed by both the ACLU and the Pennsylvania Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers echoed similar concerns about the need to uphold constitutional norms in times of crises, and further asked the court to consider conducting new bail proceedings to help alleviate jails that may be crowded with people who are incarcerated simply because they were unable to pay cash bail.
"Many of the individuals held pretrial in Montgomery County are incarcerated on cash bail. Thus, those incarcerated individuals will be exposed to an increased risk of infection simply because they cannot afford to pay for their release," the memo, filed by ACLU staff attorney Hayden Nelson-Major and PACDL president Peter Kratsa, said.
The Supreme Court's order appeared to provide guidance on some of the issues raised in the briefs, including its language saying the status should not affect a defendants' speedy trial rights. The justices had yet to make a ruling Monday afternoon about DelRicci's request.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMorgan Lewis Snatches Up Former Orrick Partner in Boston
Life Sciences M&A Set to Boom, Litigation to Remain Steady Under New Trump Admin
5 minute readFrom M&A to Music Fest, Ballard Spahr Attorney Hosts Week-Long Jam Session With Help of Clients
5 minute readIgnorance Is Not Bliss, It Is Dangerous: Hospitals Need to Take Action to Prevent Harm
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'We Should Be Pragmatic': Meet the Possible Next FTC Chair
- 2Bank of America's Cash Sweep Program Attracts New Legal Fire in Class Action
- 3Jury That Convicted Ex-Sen. Robert Menendez Accidentally Saw Improper Evidence, Prosecutors Say
- 4Freshfields Hires DOJ Official, Squire Taps Paul Hastings Atty for US Antitrust Head
- 5Goodbye 'Yellow Freight' Road?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250