Click here to subscribe today or Login.
The current system of using Central Court in Luzerne County is a cost saver not a budget buster.
In 2006, Luzerne County became the 17th county in the Commonwealth to utilize a Central Court system. Its design took the best of the best of the other 16 existing courts and eliminated glitches where possible. District Attorney David Lupas, First Assistant Jackie Musto Carroll, magisterial district judges, public defenders, state police and local police were all heavily involved in the planning of Luzerne County Central Court.
The plan was designed to centralize preliminary hearings to help streamline the county’s criminal cases, ensure a defendant’s rights, lower the county’s prison population by scheduling preliminary hearings more quickly and ease the burden on local police departments through videoconferencing and defendant transport by sheriffs instead of local police departments.
Further, it introduced the ability to assign an Assistant District Attorney (ADA) at each and every preliminary hearing, creating an environment where the prosecution and defense are involved in each earlier than in the past.
Luzerne County’s Central Court, labeled by president judges and the Administrative Office of the Pennsylvania Courts as “the model Central Court in the State” will hear approximately 8,000 cases in 2008
Central Court has approximately 200 court days which works out to an average of 40 cases per day, 12 months per year.
Dauphin County President Judge Richard Lewis, who visited Luzerne County Central Court with his staff in May of 2007 when his county was putting together a Central Court plan, called Luzerne County Central Court “very impressive” and added “your Central Court is a model of efficiency and effectiveness and I certainly hope that Dauphin County will be able to emulate it.” Also, in praising Luzerne County Central Court, Fred Pierantoni III, then president of the Special Court Judges Association of Pennsylvania, wrote in June 2008, “I wish to commend the efficiency of the Luzerne County Central Court System … my fellow Luzerne County Judges and I enjoy our working relationship with you and your staff … The Luzerne County system has been recognized as a model across the Commonwealth … you should be proud of this accomplishment.”
In a May 2008 letter, District Attorney Musto Carroll wrote this to Central Court Administrator Jim Torbik in response to a letter from him: “I know that our staff is giving everything they have and I am so pleased that you and the judges have recognized our efforts …I, in turn, would like to commend you and your staff for your continuing efforts in making our Central Court as efficient as possible.”
Two magistrates preside each day at Central Court. It is staffed by two senior magistrates and the other 17 magistrates in the county rotating. It has four secretaries to handle 8,000 cases, who, if Central Court were eliminated, would need to go back to district offices to assist in the added burden there.
Two assistant district attorneys and two public defenders are assigned each day to Central Court. Under the old system, ADAs were assigned to approximately 20 percent of the cases. The presence of an ADA in each case rids the Court of a past practice where police officers had to represent the Commonwealth. Further it achieved getting ADAs involved sooner, thus improving the chances for dialogue and resolution at an earlier stage, eliminating backlog in the overall court system. Also, a Public Defender investigator is present each day to take applications from those defendants who fail to apply for a PD prior to arriving at Central Court, a significant number. Also, victim units are present at Central Court, a benefit not available under the old system of hearing cases at 17 sites.
Ideally, merging the ADA, defense counsel and police officer at the preliminary hearing stage should provide a fertile environment for all interested parties to develop a possible disposition of the case. Once the hearing is completed, a number of things could happen. If the parties have a plea agreement worked out, the defendant will take a “plea date” at the Court of Common Pleas. If not, the defendant will be scheduled for a formal arraignment. Of course, many cases are settled at Central Court via dismissal, withdrawal, guilty plea at DJ level, etc. In 2007, nearly 35 percent of the cases at Central Court were settled without going to the Court of Common Pleas.
One of the significant benefits of Central Court is the presence of a videoconferencing system between the Thomas Building and the Luzerne County Correctional Facility.
Incarcerated defendants have the opportunity to have their preliminary hearing by videoconference, affording a tremendous savings by not transporting these defendants. In 2007, 1768 out of 2235 incarcerated defendants, or 79 percent, conducted their preliminary hearings by videoconferencing.
Also, there is transport savings to local communities when videoconferencing is utilized for a hearing where a defendant is incarcerated in another part of the state. Further, this summer the Sheriff’s Office began transporting prisoners to Central Court from the Luzerne County Correctional Facility – with savings to local communities. When communities were responsible for transfer under the old system, at least two officers were needed.
As an aside, any proposal to revert to the “old system” for a short period of time is preposterous. There is a 2- to 3-month scheduling window which must be addressed regarding preliminary hearings, that is we are already scheduling cases for December. Central Court is a critical component of a defendant’s right to a speedy trial.
One final note, Central Court’s proposed budget for 2009 is about $476,000, not $900,000 as reported.
Paul S. McGarry
Administrative Services Director
Luzerne County Courts