Tired of ads? Subscribers enjoy a distraction-free reading experience.
Click here to subscribe today or Login.

The judge assigned in the county court’s juvenile scandal is considering whether the decisions made by former county Judge Mark Ciavarella can be vacated as a whole or if they must be sorted into groups and reviewed in stages.
Senior Judge Arthur Grim, appointed by the state Supreme Court to review the juvenile cases heard by Ciavarella, filed an order on Thursday asking attorneys involved in the cases to file briefs on two topics.
First, he asked if previous appellate court rulings require the vacating “all adjudications of delinquency and all consent decrees entered by” Ciavarella between 2003 and May 2008 regardless of legal representation for the juvenile, or if they require only “a smaller set” to be vacated.
He also noted a potential parallel to a judicial scandal involving the Philadelphia Roofers’ Union, and asked what became of cases handled by judges disciplined or removed from the bench as a result of that.
Second, he asked for arguments on whether the double jeopardy clauses in the state constitution and the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution apply to Pennsylvania juvenile court proceedings. And if so, does that entitle juveniles who have their decisions vacated to dismissal of the charges?
The Juvenile Law Center had asked Grim whether the “review (could be) done in a way that would not require it being spread out,” explained the center’s Marsha Levick. “We had simply requested … that there’s no reason for staging because they all fall under the (appellate court’s ruling in the) McFall case.”
She said it was also important to discern what the district attorney’s position is on the issue.