A deeper look into the juvenile rights case against former Judge Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan paints a clearer picture about the Juvenile Law Center's efforts. After you read this information one has to wonder why the Supreme Court dimissed their first and second requests for review. View this PowerPoint presentationto glean a glimpse of what was passed on to me by law enforcement.
A look at our Constitution will provide one of the answers concerning the charges against Ciavarella and Conahan. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel and other rights designed to ensure that an accused individual receives a fair trial. The Sixth Amendment provides, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; . . . and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”
Apparently the former judges violated the Sixth Amendment of the Bill of Rights(along with the Fourteenth Amendment which made the Sixth Amendment apply to states). Although Ciavarella and Conahan sat on the bench in Luzerne County they were under the jurisdiction of the state.
Here are two important rules of the Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Judges' Commission
42 Pa.C.S. §6337 (right to counsel) and Rules 150-152, Pa.R.J.C.P. (counsel).
§ 7-2 Attorney Representation-Juveniles are entitled to representation by counsel at every stage of a delinquency proceeding; those who are “without financial resources or otherwise unable to employcounsel” are entitled to court-appointed counsel. The first time a juvenile appears before thecourt unrepresented, the judge must inform him of these rights in plain language.
It should be remembered that not all juveniles understand the term “counsel,” or even “attorney,” and that even apparently sophisticated ones may not fully grasp the need for an advisor and advocate in the situation in which they are placed. The basic points to be impressed uponeach juvenile are that having a lawyer in court (1) is expected, (2) is free, and (3) helps the system function as it should. The court may continue proceedings at any time to enable anunrepresented juvenile to obtain counsel. If an attorney is to be assigned, the assignment must occur prior to the detention hearing if the juvenile is detained, or otherwise prior to the adjudication hearing. Once an attorney has been assigned or has entered an appearance on behalf of a juvenile, representation continues until court supervision is terminated and the case closed, unless the attorney is permitted to withdraw.
Waiver of Counsel- A juvenile may waive the right to counsel, but only if the waiver is knowing, intelligent and voluntary and the court has tested its basis by means of an on-the-record colloquy with thejuvenile (see sidebar “A Recommended Waiver Colloquy”). In general, as a matter both of law and of fundamental fairness, the court should be extremely reluctant to accept a juvenile’s waiver of the right to counsel. The JCJC Standards Governing Hearing Procedures provide that a juvenile may not waive his right to counsel “unless he has had the opportunity to consult with an interested and informed adult” who is “primarily interested in the welfare” of the juvenile and aware of the rights guaranteed to him under the constitution. Judges should be extremely reluctant to accept ajuvenile’s waiver of the right to counsel.
Pre-Adjudicatory Procedures § 7-3 Judges should not only be skeptical regarding attempts to waive the right to counsel, but alert to the possibility of interfamilial conflicts of interest in this area. The right to counsel is a personal one, and may be waived only by the juvenile, not by the juvenile’s family. Where there is reason to believe that a parent’s interests may be in conflict with the juvenile’s, and that the juvenile has been induced to waive his right in the service of a parental interest, it may be necessary to conduct separate colloquies regarding the positions of the family members—with the juvenile’s occurring out of the hearing of his parents. The court may assign “stand-by counsel” whenever a juvenile waives representation. In any case, the waiver applies only to the hearing for which it is made. Not only may it be revoked at any time, but the court must inform the juvenile of the right to counsel again at each subsequent hearing in the case.
However, the former judge is not the only culprit in this scheme. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court appointed Judge Arthur E. Grim of Berks County to review Luzerne County juvenile court proceedings that may have been tainted by the criminal allegations against former judges Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. and Michael T. Conahan. It is my information that juveniles who took a lawyer to court will not have their cases reviewed by Judge Grim. Their remedy might be instituting a malpractice case against the lawyer who prevented proper representation before Ciavarella.
Look at this statement which appeared in the Times Leader.
The Supreme Court’s order directs Grim to identify juveniles who were not represented and those who were committed to the two juvenile centers in question.
What a "grim" prospect for those parents who had representation. I know, I know.
No comments:
Post a Comment