The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is set to kick off a blockbuster argument session May 19, and for the first time ever it will be broadcast live online.

The justices are scheduled to hear 17 cases during a staggered three-day argument session. All of the arguments are set to be livestreamed on YouTube and then archived for future viewing. The move to online argument sessions is being made as courts across the state have been largely shuttered as part of the effort to stem the spread of the coronavirus.

The staggered session is set to begin May 19, with the second day of arguments taking place May 21, and the third day of the session occurring May 27.

Last month, the justices canceled their April session, which had been set to take place in Pittsburgh. At the time, courts in Pennsylvania were still coming to terms with the full effect of the virus, and in the midst of ramping up their technological capabilities.

Nanny Cam Audio

The justices are set to hear several high-profile criminal matters during the session, including the question of whether audio from a hidden surveillance camera is admissible evidence under the wiretap act.

Early on May 19, the justices are set to hear arguments in Commonwealth v. Mason. The case is on appeal by the Franklin County District Attorney's Office after a divided three-judge Superior Court panel allowed into evidence video of defendant Beth Ann Mason allegedly assaulting children in her care, but barred the audio portion of the recording. Mason had allegedly been captured on a nanny cam in the house where she worked.

According to court papers, Mason worked as a nanny for a family with six children. Based on his own observations and on accounts relayed to him by his 3-year-old son, the father installed a hidden camera in the children's bedroom. The camera eventually captured audio and video footage of Mason yelling at one of the children, shoving her into a crib and allegedly striking the child several times. The father gave the footage to police, who charged Mason with aggravated assault, simple assault and child endangerment.

But Mason filed an omnibus pretrial motion arguing that the audio and video recording should be excluded from evidence because it was captured without her knowledge in violation of Section 5721.1(a) of the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act.

Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Jeremiah D. Zook agreed and barred the entire recording from evidence.

The Superior Court, however, said the image couldn't be an "electronic communication" under the law because it had not been transmitted "by a wire, a radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photo-optical system."

The court noted that the holding was in line with rulings by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First, Second, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth circuits, as well as the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal and the New Jersey Superior Court.

Medical Marijuana

In another closely watched criminal case before the justices, the high court is set to consider in Commonwealth v. Peck what elements are necessary to sustain a drug delivery resulting in death conviction. Justices are set to hear that case May 27.

Defendant Mitchell Peck Jr. was convicted in the York County Court of Common Pleas of one count of drug delivery resulting in death under Section 2506 of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code, stemming from his sale of heroin to his friend Kevin Hunt that ultimately caused Hunt to overdose and die. Peck received the maximum sentence of 20 to 40 years in prison.

Peck argued on appeal that the sale could not have violated Section 2506 because it occurred in Maryland, not Pennsylvania. York County prosecutors countered that the location of the sale was rendered irrelevant by the fact that Hunt's death occurred in Pennsylvania. A unanimous three-judge Superior Court panel ruled this past January to affirm Peck's conviction and sentence.

On the same day, the justices are scheduled to mull whether a defendant who received a mandatory life sentence as a juvenile can be ordered to pay court costs associated with the resentencing proceedings, where were made mandatory by recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent. The consolidated cases Commonwealth v. Lehman and Commonwealth v. Davis raise the issue.

In Gass v. 52nd Judicial District, the justices are set to consider a challenge to a policy barring people on probation from using medical marijuana. Challengers in that case, which is being argued Tuesday, contend Lebanon County's policy baring the use of medical cannabis while on probation goes against the Medical Marijuana Act.

Sanctions Saga

The justices are also set to hear a challenge to the civil lawsuit that Nancy Raynor leveled against several attorneys who sought a nearly $1 million sanction against her—which a trial judge agreed to, but was later reversed by an appeals court.

The case, captioned Raynor v. D'Annunzio, stems from the 2014 proceedings that captured the attention of Pennsylvania lawyers after Raynor, a Malvern-based medical malpractice defense attorney, was hit with a $946,197 sanction for allegedly causing a mistrial by eliciting an improper reference to smoking in a lung-cancer-related case. Those sanctions were overturned in the appellate courts. Raynor brought the Dragonetti suit at issue in the Supreme Court's session against three attorneys and two law firms in 2017. Her suit was initially tossed out at the trial court phase before the Superior Court reinstated it earlier this year.

On May 27, the high court is expected to delve into whether the sanctions motion in the underlying case constituted "civil proceedings" under the Dragonetti Act, and whether the Superior Court's decision essentially created "new Pennsylvania law" by giving Raynor standing when she was not a party in the underlying action.

Strict Liability

In Gregg v. Ameriprise Financial, the justices are set to consider whether the catchall provision of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law requires plaintiffs to prove negligent or fraudulent misrepresentation. According to counsel for the plaintiffs, the case should give the justices an opportunity to clear up a question that courts and litigants have struggled with for decades: What is the definition of "deceptive conduct" in the 1996 amendment to the UTPCPL?

The justices are set to hear the case May 21.

In October 2018, the Superior Court held that the protections of the UTPCPL extended to plaintiffs Gary and Mary Gregg in their lawsuit against Ameriprise and related entities, upholding an Allegheny County trial judge's ruling. In doing so, the appeals court said the 1996 amendment to the UTPCPL eliminated the requirement that plaintiffs prove negligence or intent to deceive and thus "imposed strict liability on vendors who deceive consumers by creating a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding in private, as well as public, causes of actions."