Luzerne County Judges

March 30, 2010

Judge: ‘Serious issues’ need fixing

Judge: ‘Serious issues’ need fixing

By Terrie Morgan-Besecker tmorgan@timesleader.com
Law & Order Reporter
Terrie Morgan-Besecker on Facebook   |   @TLTerrieMorgan on Twitter

WILKES-BARRE – The special master appointed to review juvenile court cases handled by former Judge Mark Ciavarella issued a final report Monday that recommends several key changes within the system.

Senior Berks County Judge Arthur Grim said he believes the abuses that occurred in Luzerne County are an aberration, but there are clearly “serious issues” that need to be addressed within the juvenile justice system to ensure the problems are not repeated elsewhere.

Those issues include: ensuring there is adequate funding to pay for the legal representation of every juvenile, who should be presumed to be indigent; establishing an ombudsman to watch over the system; expediting appellate court review of cases and opening court proceedings to the public with limitations that would ensure the privacy of juveniles and victims.

Grim also recommends that juveniles who wish to waive their right to an attorney be required to consult with legal counsel before doing so. If a juvenile still wishes to waive representation, the state should require stand-by counsel to be present.

Grim was appointed by the state Supreme Court to review Ciavarella’s cases after he and fellow former Luzerne County Judge Michael Conahan were charged in January 2009 with improperly accepting millions of dollars from the one-time co-owner and builder of two juvenile facilities the county utilized.

Grim previously issued two reports that resulted in the state Supreme Court vacating the convictions of thousands of juveniles who appeared before Ciavarella from 2003 to 2008. The court on Monday issued an order authorizing Grim to take the final steps to vacate and expunge the records.

The high court’s rulings were based on Grim’s findings that Ciavarella committed serious violations of juveniles’ constitutional rights. Those violations included encouraging youths to waive their right to an attorney, then accepting guilty pleas without advising them of the potential ramifications.

Grim also faulted Ciavarella for the rapid-fire pace he maintained in hearing cases. Many hearings lasted only minutes, with the children being given little or no chance to speak.

Despite those abuses, Grim cautioned he does not advocate taking the decision-making process away from judges. Rather, he wants judges to be required to state on the record their reason for a particular sentence.

“In analyzing the Luzerne County debacle, it is clear that the judicial process had run amok and in essence was governed by the wanton exercise of power, dominated by greed and with little or no concern for the welfare of juveniles. ...,” Grim wrote. “There is a lesson to be learned by the overwhelming majority of jurists who are honest and hard working, who care deeply about the justice system and who labor diligently to make the correct decisions.”

Grim said he’d like to see juvenile judges statewide avail themselves to assessment tools that are available that assign points for specific risk factors with consideration to aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Berks County has utilized that system since 2006 and saw a 45 percent reduction in the average daily population at juvenile centers without compromising the public’s safety, he said.

The report is among several prepared by professionals within the juvenile justice system that seek to provide guidance to the Supreme Court as it considers what, if any changes, should be made to the system.

The court is now awaiting a final report from the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice, which was formed to analyze failures within Luzerne County’s system. The commission held several public hearings, the last of which are scheduled for this Thursday and April 12. Its report is due to the Supreme Court by May 31.

Tweet	Follow @TLnews

Send Question or Remark to the Publisher