Judiciary Endorses Emergency Court Procedures Amid Virus Pandemic
The Judicial Council received more than 50 letters—many of them critical of proposed delays to criminal proceedings—prior to Saturday's meeting.
March 28, 2020 at 06:37 PM
4 minute read
A day after Gov. Gavin Newsom granted California's chief justice expansive powers to change court rules across the state, the Judicial Council on Saturday urged Tani Cantil-Sakauye to temporarily extend criminal procedural deadlines to help courts deal with pandemic-related closures and limited calendars.
The council, meeting in an emergency session, unanimously endorsed extending the time for a defendant to be arraigned from 48 hours to seven days. Courts will also be allowed to delay preliminary hearings and criminal trials under the proposal approved by the council.
The changes, if mandated by the chief justice as expected, will be in force until 90 days after the governor lifts the state of emergency declared to deal with the COVID-19 outbreak.
"These extensions are not a license to wait," said appellate Justice Marsha Slough, chair of the council's executive and planning committee. "They are intended for relief to the trial courts who've asked for relief to assist them in accomplishing their core business."
The council also asked the chief justice to direct courts to use technology in proceedings as much as possible to enable remote appearances, interpreting and court reporting. Before the pandemic, court reporters and interpreters had opposed using technology to replace in-person translating and transcribing.
"People in the courts, many of them are first responders, they are law enforcement, they are firefighters, they are a variety of first responders," Cantil-Sakauye said Saturday. "And we need judges who are healthy and able to be on the bench."
The chief justice said she has "received no assurances" that jails are imposing social distancing rules, either within their facilities or while transferring inmates to courts.
"This is also an avenue to protect the public," Cantil-Sakauye said. "This is to protect inmates as well. This is about protecting the public, flattening the curve, making sure that courts are not vectors."
The Judicial Council received more than 50 letters prior to Saturday's meeting—conducted by a faulty telephone system without public comment—many of them critical of proposed delays to criminal proceedings.
The delayed arraignment proposal "will disproportionately impact low income people who cannot afford the amount of bail provided for in the bail schedule," wrote Kathleen Guneratne, senior staff attorney for the ACLU Foundation of Northern California. "While people with means will presumably still be able to bail out of jail quickly, low income people will have to wait for a week for any meaningful consideration of release either on lower bail or on their own recognizance."
Cantil-Sakauye emphasized that the measures are temporary and will be used only as a means "to get over this hump."
Newsom on Friday signed an executive order freeing Cantil-Sakauye from statutory restrictions limiting her ability to order changes through California's courts to address the pandemic.
Asked about the order Saturday, Newsom said he has "deep respect" for the chief justice and the Judicial Council.
"I have incredible confidence not only in her leadership but the Judicial Council's leadership to meet this moment with the kind of alacrity that's required of it, where they're not waiting for a formal executive order for every specific protocol to come from my desk with my signature," Newsom said at an event in San Jose.
"This will allow them the ability in real time to meet the needs of the criminal and civil justice systems," Newsom said.
Judicial branch leaders said Saturday that they will likely hold more meetings to address operations during the pandemic, including handling eviction proceedings and other civil issues.
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 AllSanta Barbara Judge Accused of Moonlighting as Attorney for Secretary/Girlfriend
4 minute readInsurers Dodge Sherwin-Williams' Claim for $102M Lead Paint Abatement Payment, State High Court Rules
Trending Stories
- 1Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 2Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 3Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
- 4Husch Blackwell, Foley Among Law Firms Opening Southeast Offices This Year
- 5In Lawsuit, Ex-Google Employee Says Company’s Layoffs Targeted Parents and Others on Leave
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