Repairing broken justice

JUDGE GRIM ON CIAVARELLA’S COURT: “It’s not only against the law and procedure, it is so obvious, on its face, wrong, that it blew my mind.”

PLAINS TWP. -- Former Luzerne County Judge Mark Ciavarella engaged in the “most egregious violation of trust given a judge” in his handling of juvenile cases, a Berks County judge testified Monday before a commission investigating failings within the county’s juvenile system.

Judge Arthur Grim, the special master appointed to review the cases, said Ciavarella presided over a “system run amok” where hearings lasted no more than three to five minutes and the constitutional rights of juveniles were non-existent.

Juveniles would be encouraged to waive their right to an attorney, then plead guilty to charges that were not even read into the record, Grim said.

Worse yet, Ciavarella denied juveniles their right to an impartial hearing by accepting money from the owner of a detention facility the county utilized, Grim said. Ciavarella also frequently read probation reports regarding a juvenile’s alleged crimes before he held the hearing to determine whether or not they were guilty of the offense.

“It’s not only against the law and procedure, it is so obvious, on its face, wrong, that it blew my mind,” Grim told the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice.

Those violations were among a multitude of problems Grim uncovered that resulted in the state Supreme Court last month vacating the convictions of all juveniles who appeared before Ciavarella from 2003 to 2008.

Grim was among three witnesses who testified during the first day of a two-day hearing of the commission being held at the Best Western East Mountain Inn in Plains Township. Persons scheduled to testify today include Judge David Lupas, who presides over juvenile court, District Attorney Jacqueline Musto Carroll and Chief Public Defender Basil Russin.

The 11-member commission was formed in August to analyze what went wrong in Luzerne County and to issue recommendations to ensure it doesn’t happen again here or elsewhere.

Grim made several suggestions. They included opening more juvenile proceedings to the public, as long as safeguards are put in place to protect the identity of the juveniles and victims, and providing more training for attorneys, both prosecutors and defense, who practice in juvenile court.

He also called upon police departments and schools to consider alternative programs – such as youth advisory panels and anti-bullying programs – to resolve cases short of sending them to juvenile court. Grim said he saw many cases involving minor offenses that could have easily handled outside of court. Instead they went before Ciavarella, who Grim said incarcerated the youths in treatment centers.

“It was apparent that many school officials supported Ciavarella’s ‘get tough’ policy without really giving thought to what it meant,” Grim said. “They would immediately pick up the phone and call police because they knew if they reported it and it got in front of a ‘get tough’ judge . . . the troublemaker would be out of their hair.”

Grim was appointed to review all of Ciavarella’s juvenile cases after Ciavarella and his co-defendant, former judge Michael Conahan, were charged in January with accepting more than $2.6 million from the owner and builder of two juvenile centers the county utilized. The ex-judges initially pleaded guilty, but later withdrew their pleas and are awaiting trial.

Not all juveniles Ciavarella incarcerated were sent to the two centers, but his acceptance of the money undoubtedly colored his judgment in other cases, Grim said.

“Any time there is an obscene amount of money being paid to a judge, there is not only an appearance of impropriety, there is such impropriety that it makes it impossible for an individual to be impartial,” Grim said. “You can’t be just a little bit unethical. You’re either an ethical judge or not.”

Grim also touched on the topic that is expected to dominate today’s hearing: Why defense attorneys and prosecutors failed to report the constitutional violations and excessively tough punishment Ciavarella dished out in his courtroom.

Grim said he believes part of the problem was the “nimby” or “not in my backyard” attitude of some members of the Luzerne County bar. He noted there are approximately 300 practicing attorneys in the Luzerne County bar, but only a handful routinely handle juvenile criminal matters.

“Maybe there’s a problem, but let Joe take care of it,” was the attitude, Grim said.

He said he suspects the more serious problem was that attorneys feared retaliation if they spoke out against Ciavarella, who served as president judge as of 2006. The president judge holds immense power because he decides which attorneys get appointed to lucrative positions within the court, such as arbitration panels and masters in custody and divorce proceedings.

“People were afraid if they raised too much ruckus, that same judge decides all the hirings,” Grim said.

The fear of retaliation was intensified in 2005, when judge Chester Muroski raised concerns about the large number of juveniles being sent to out-of-home placements, Grim said. After he spoke out, Muroski was yanked from his long-time position as juvenile dependency judge and ordered to hear criminal cases.

“People understood that if a judge, who has a certain amount of authority and power, could be treated that way . . . what would happen to me as a little guy?” Grim said.

The point was reiterated later by Sandra Brulo, a former Luzerne County juvenile probation official who pleaded guilty to altering a juvenile’s record. “When the judge asks you to do something, you do it,” she said. “The judge is the final say, and not too many people want to question the judge.”

Monday’s hearing also featured testimony from Joseph Massa, chief counsel for the Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board, which investigates allegations of impropriety against judges.

Massa confirmed the board received a complaint against Conahan in 2006. That complaint, a copy of which was obtained by The Times Leader, raised concerns that Conahan was involved in some nefarious activity involving juvenile placements.

Massa told the commission the board referred that complaint to the U.S. Attorney’s office. He said it was the board’s policy to refer any case alleging criminal wrongdoing to the appropriate law enforcement agency.

Massa’s testimony before the Interbranch Commission was not made willingly. John M. Cleland, chairman of the commission, noted that the Judicial Conduct Board filed an emergency petition with the state Supreme Court on Friday, seeking to quash the subpoena that had been issued to Massa. The high court denied the request, however.

The Interbranch commission must complete its report by May 31. In an opening statement, Cleland said he believes the commission will gather important information that will allow it to provide some meaningful recommendations. But he cautioned the public not to expect a quick fix that will resolve all issues.

“None of us should hold any illusions that the recommendations of one more commission . . . . or the adoption of one or more rule of court will prevent this from ever happening again,” Cleland said.

The fact is, Cleland said, is there were already laws and procedures in place that should have prevented these abuses, but did not.

“Having said that, be assured we will do whatever we reasonably can do to develop recommendations for improvements that we believe could deter criminality by those who administer the juvenile justice system.”

Mostly
Cloudy 59°

Luzerne County Judges

A commission begins hearings on what went wrong in Luzerne County.

Place Quick Ads

MostlyCloudy 59°

Luzerne County Judges

Place Quick Ads

Mostly
Cloudy 59°