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
© 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 AllLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1How to Support Law Firm Profitability: Train Partners Up
- 2Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 3Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 4Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 5X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
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