Judge explains restitution decision

Senior Berks County Judge Arthur Grim said he expects some victims of crimes committed by juveniles may be upset by his order Monday that absolved the offenders from paying restitution, but he felt he was legally obligated to do so.

Grim said that, because the underlying convictions were vacated, he does not believe there is any legal authority to require the juveniles to pay any further restitution. Restitution that was already paid will not have to be returned by the victims, however.

“The bottom line is when an order is vacated and a record expunged, it’s over. There is no ability for anyone in the court system to require anything further of these kids,” Grim said.

Despite that, he said he remains hopeful that victims will be able to receive at least partial restitution through state and/or federal programs that compensate crime victims.

Carol Lavery of the state’s Office of Victim Advocate is scheduled to meet with county officials on Friday to discuss the matter. Lavery said Tuesday she is exploring “every possible avenue” to find some funds.

“There are some possibilities out there, but there is nothing concrete,” Lavery said.

The state Supreme Court in October vacated the convictions of an estimated 6,500 juveniles who appeared before former judge Mark Ciavarella from 2003 to 2008.

The order was based on a report issued by Grim that determined Ciavarella had violated the juveniles’ right to a fair trial.

Grim was appointed to review Ciavarella’s cases after he and former judge Michael Conahan were charged with accepting millions of dollars from the builder and the former co-owner of two juvenile facilities the county utilized.

The Supreme Court’s order barred retrials in all but a small portion of the cases. Luzerne County District Attorney Jacqueline Musto Carroll was set to retry 27 cases.

On Monday she said she agreed with Grim’s determination that they were also barred from retrial based on the wording in the Supreme Court order.

Of the 27 juveniles, 20 still owed restitution totaling $41,111, according to Michael Vecchio, head of county’s probation department.

The victims in those cases are not the only ones who won’t get further restitution, however.

The probation department stopped collecting restitution from all other juveniles whose cases were previously vacated once the Supreme Court order came down, Vecchio said. The total number of cases and the amount of money involved was not available Tuesday.

Lavery said she has been receiving phone calls for the past several weeks from victims who learned that the restitution orders in their cases were vacated along with the juveniles’ convictions.

“Those I’m hearing from are unhappy and frustrated,” Lavery said. “There’s a sense of unfairness.”

Grim said he was “acutely aware” that the ruling would upset many people, but he’s obligated to abide by the law, and there’s simply no authority to demand juveniles pay restitution once their conviction has been vacated.

Grim noted there were also other problems in some of the cases because Ciavarella did not follow the law in determining how much restitution the juvenile owed.

Grim said the law requires that a judge set restitution at an amount that a juvenile is reasonably able to pay.

Ciavarella ignored that mandate in some cases, directing the juvenile to pay thousands of dollars even though there was little chance they could ever pay off the debt, he said.

“He entered an order in one case for $80,000 apparently without any thought if the child could make that payment,” Grim said.

Grim said county officials have assured him they will work diligently to seek other sources to pay the restitution.

“There are a whole lot of people doing what they can to make sure the victims are made whole monetarily. But they can’t do it with the kids. Their cases are over,” Grim said.