California Judges and Lawyers Praise Statewide Suspension of Trials Amid Pandemic
Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye faced a "tough call" in a rare scenario that required balancing competing interests.
March 24, 2020 at 06:51 PM
4 minute read
California attorneys and state judges on Tuesday largely endorsed Monday's sweeping order by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye suspending all jury trials across the state for 60 days.
The order allows courts to conduct trials earlier if they use "remote technology" or issue a finding of good cause. Presiding judges were also authorized to adopt new rules of court, or to amend current ones, aimed at coping with the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The California Judges Association "fully supports the decision of Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye to suspend all jury trials for the next 60 days in light of the COVID-19 pandemic for the health and safety of potential jurors, court staff, litigants, and the public," the organization's president, B. Tam Nomoto Schumann, said in a statement.
Cantil-Sakauye's statewide order marked a shift from her previous statements that she and the Judicial Council have limited authority over trial court operations.
"This all highlights a gap in the law that the Legislature could and should fix immediately by urgency legislation," Horvitz & Levy of counsel David Ettinger wrote on his blog, At the Lectern. "The chief justice, as head of the judicial branch of government, should have broad emergency authority over that branch's operations."
The order cited Cantil-Sakauye's authority under Article VI, Section 6 of the California Constitution, which empowers the chief justice to "expedite judicial business." It also references Government Code Section 68115, which authorizes the chief justice to extend deadlines in court matters during times of "calamity, epidemic, natural disaster, or other substantial risk."
David Carrillo, executive director of the University of California Berkeley School of Law's California Constitution Center, said Cantil-Sakauye faced a "tough call" in a rare scenario that requires balancing competing interests.
"As head of the state's judicial branch and the Judicial Council, California's chief justice has inherent powers to take any necessary action to preserve the courts' existence. And she has express constitutional and statutory authority to administer the courts during an epidemic," Carrillo said. "Administering justice will become impossible if the state's judges all get sidelined from contracting coronavirus, so limiting public contact preserves the state's ability to keep the courts open."
Oscar Bobrow, president of the California Public Defenders Association, said that given the potential for exposure to the virus, "I am not sure that there has been a great deal of protest for the suspension of proceedings already in progress."
But "wholescale shutdown of the system, occurring in some counties, is unacceptable for those who have recently been arrested and incarcerated," Bobrow said.
Aside from jury trials, California's 58 trial courts still have broad authority to define their own operations.
Eric Schweitzer, president of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, which represents the private defense bar, said he was at the Tulare County Superior Court on Tuesday morning and saw preliminary hearings in action. At a courthouse in Fresno County, where the courts are generally closed to the public, Schweitzer said he had to be escorted by a law enforcement officer to a filing station where he hand-stamped his own paperwork.
Like Bobrow, Schweitzer said he fears for those in jails who will be forced to wait longer for a trial. But he calls the trials' suspension "good and necessary."
"You're not going to get a jury right now anyway," Schweitzer said.
The Consumer Attorneys of California on Tuesday issued a statement saying the chief justice's order underscores the need for the governor to extend legal deadlines. The plaintiffs association and the California Defense Counsel asked Gov. Gavin Newsom in a March 22 letter for an emergency order to extend the statute of limitations and other legal deadlines, to allow for remote depositions and to allow service by electronic means.
Read more:
San Jose Federal Courthouse Closed After Visitor Treated for COVID-19
Meet the Lawyers Guiding California's Coronavirus Pandemic Response
California Chief Justice Suspends Trials Statewide for 60 Days
How COVID-19 Is Impacting California Courts: Roundup of Services
SF US Attorney Predicts 'Permanent Cultural Change' After Coronavirus
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 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 AllState Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
3 minute readApple Disputes 'Efforts to Manufacture' Imaging Sensor Claims Against iPhone 15 Technology
Lawsuit alleges racial and gender discrimination led to an Air Force contractor's death at California airfield
7 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Cornell Claims AT&T, Verizon Violated the University's Wi-Fi Patents
- 2OCR Issues 'Dear Colleagues' Letter Regarding AI in Medicine
- 3Corporate Litigator Joins BakerHostetler From Fish & Richardson
- 4E-Discovery Provider Casepoint Merges With Government Software Company OPEXUS
- 5How I Made Partner: 'Focus on Being the Best Advocate for Clients,' Says Lauren Reichardt of Cooley
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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