Lack Of Oversight of The Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Why does Pa. Supreme Court tread so lightly around juvenile-rights tangle? And so asks John Baer of the Philadelphia Daily News.

I ask Chief Justice Ron Castille what took so long. "We had to wait for everybody else to answer," he says.

That would be the county court, the local D.A., and so on. Plus, Castille argues, Judge Ciavarella, within weeks of the April filing, pulled himself off juvenile cases and issued new written notices to charged kids and their parents about right-to-counsel.

Since nothing was alleged about kickbacks at that point (the judges were charged Jan. 26), Castille felt that the right-to-counsel issue was resolved and saw no need for Supreme Court intervention. What about the statistics, I ask? Didn't they cause you concern?

"Well, you know statistics. . . . There are lies, damn lies and statistics," he says.

(I hope he's kidding; government policy is built on statistics.)

Questioned further, he says, "We are not an investigative agency."

When I ask if he'd considered referring the statistics to an investigative agency, he says: "They weren't our statistics."

I start to sense a circular argument. What about possible public perception that since detention facilities in question are owned by Greg Zappala, son of former Chief Justice Stephen Zappala, the court might be, uh, slowed or swayed?

He laughs, calls me a cynic and says:

"No, Greg Zappala is a legitimate businessman, as far as I know."

Zappala is not charged, and reportedly is not a target of the probe.

Lack of judicial oversight allows such smugness in the answers to this reporter's questions. It almost legitimizes the label of ruling elite. Judge Castille, should not your judiciary be held to a higher standard than what we would accept in the private world? Why have judicial cannons if suspected behavior isn't reported to the proper investigative agencies?

We cannot let Jackie Musto-Carroll off the hook in this matter. She was co-operating with the FBI in their investigation of the corruption at the Luzerne County Courthouse. In the face of that co-operation she wrote a brief to the court containing the following statement "The Petitioners have not shown that the issue is of such immediate public importance that extraordinary jurisdiction is required. Nor have the Petitioners clearly demonstrate that their rights have been violated. In addition the Petitioners allegations regarding other juveniles who may be similarly situated have not shown that such individuals even exist."

From the press release of U.S. Attorney Martin Carlson dated January 26, 2009 "Mr. Carlson further noted that Luzerne County District Attorney Jackie Carroll worked closely with federal investigators and the United States Attorney's Office in assisting in the investigation." It is hard to comprehend how DA Carroll could write a brief in opposition knowing the facts she must have known given that statement.