News

March 27

California looks at Ciavarella outcome

By Sheena Delazio sdelazio@timesleader.com
Times Leader Staff Writer
Sheena Delazio on Facebook   |   @TLSheenaDelazio on Twitter

WILKES-BARRE – The federal corruption trial of former Judge Mark Ciavarella was at the center of attention of Luzerne County.

The story made local headlines first. Then, the national press and news shows such as ABC’s “Good Morning America” and “20/20” and NBC’s “Today” aired stories.

Now, the case is being read by California lawyers, after the California Bar Journal published an article about the trial in its March edition.

The article is headlined “Could it happen here?” and is written by Janice M. Brickley, a legal advisor to commissioners at the California Commission on Judicial Performance.

“The case, an alarming story of judicial corruption and failures throughout the justice system that lasted two years, should raise a question in the minds of Californians: Could it happen here?” she wrote.

Brickley outlined the outcome of the trial, including Ciavarella’s conviction on 12 of 39 counts, including racketeering and mail fraud, as well as the indictment against Ciavarella.

The article mentions Ciavarella’s co-defendant, former Judge Michael Conahan, and implicated attorney Robert Powell.

“In addition to his Draconian sentencing practices, Ciavarella routinely deprived juveniles of their constitutional right to counsel,” Brickley wrote. “As a result, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated the adjudications of all juveniles who appeared before Ciavarella over a five-year period.”

Brickley spoke of the Pennsylvania Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice and their response to the conduct.

But, according to Brickley, the California Commission on Judicial Performance put policies in place long before the “Pennsylvania scandal.”

The California commission enacted procedures to ensure all complaints are properly brought to its attention and that no complaint “falls through the cracks.”

“A complaint is not closed, deferred, investigated or referred to prosecuting authorities without the commission’s authorization,” Brickley wrote. “Its policy is to review all new complaints within 60 days of receipt.”

While the commission’s policy, Brickley wrote, required reporting on these matters every six months, in practice all deferred matters are reported on at each commission meeting, every six to seven weeks.

Brickley said the report made by the Interbranch Commission “serves as a reminder of the critical role a judicial disciplinary system plays in maintaining public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary and the importance of ensuring that it fulfills that mandate.”

The California commission, she wrote, works “diligently” to ensure its rules and procedures are not vulnerable to the “failures that occurred in Pennsylvania.”

Tweet	Follow @TLnews

Send Question or Remark to the Publisher