Pa. high court tosses ‘kids for cash’ convictions. 6500 convictions dismissed.

[jimmy olsen]

Excellent news.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33539621/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Pa. high court tosses 'kids for cash' convictions

Ruling covers more than 6,000 cases linked to juvenile justice scandal

updated 7:46 p.m. ET Oct. 29, 2009
WILKES-BARRE, Pa. - The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed thousands of juvenile convictions issued by a judge charged in a corruption scandal, saying that none of the young offenders got a fair hearing.

The high court on Thursday threw out more than five years' worth of juvenile cases heard by former Luzerne County Judge Mark Ciavarella, who is charged with accepting millions of dollars in kickbacks to send youths to private detention centers.

The Philadelphia-based Juvenile Law Center, which represents some of the youths, said the court's order covers as many as 6,500 cases. The justices barred any possibility of retrial in all but a fraction of them.

"This is exactly the relief these kids needed," said Marsha Levick, the center's legal director. "It's the most serious judicial corruption scandal in our history and the court took an extraordinary step in addressing it."

Children appeared without lawyers
Children routinely appeared in front of Ciavarella without lawyers for hearings that lasted only a few minutes. Ciavarella also failed to question young defendants to make sure they fully understood the consequences of waiving counsel and pleading guilty, showing "complete disregard for the constitutional rights of the juveniles," the Supreme Court said.

After being found delinquent, the youths were often shackled and taken to private jails whose owner was paying bribes to the judge. Federal prosecutors have said that Ciavarella and another Luzerne County judge, Michael Conahan, took a total of $2.8 million in payoffs.

"Ciavarella's admission that he received these payments, and that he failed to disclose his financial interests arising from the development of the juvenile facilities, thoroughly undermines the integrity of all juvenile proceedings before Ciavarella," the Supreme Court said.

The judges pleaded guilty in February to honest services fraud and tax evasion in a deal with prosecutors that called for a sentence of 87 months in prison. But the deal was rejected in August by Senior U.S. District Judge Edward M. Kosik, who said the two hadn't fully accepted responsibility for the crimes, and the ex-judges switched their pleas to not guilty.

A federal grand jury then returned a 48-count racketeering indictment against the judges, who await trial.

The Supreme Court had previously overturned hundreds of juvenile convictions involving low-level offenses. Thursday's ruling covered all cases heard by Ciavarella between 2003 and 2008, including ones involving more serious crimes.

"We fully agree that, given the nature and extent of the taint, this Court simply cannot have confidence that any juvenile matter adjudicated by Ciavarella during this period was tried in a fair and impartial manner," the court wrote.

Prosecutors in Luzerne County had agreed that none of the convictions should stand, but they wanted the right to bring dangerous offenders back into court for retrials.

The court said the district attorney's office may seek to retry youths who remain under court supervision — a group that Levick said likely numbers fewer than 100. And those youths may challenge any attempt to retry them on double-jeopardy grounds, the court said.

Ex-judges seek immunity
Berks County Senior Judge Arthur Grim, whom the justices appointed in February to review cases handled by Ciavarella, will consider any retrial requests made by the DA's office and forward his recommendations to the high court.

Meanwhile, the two ex-judges have asked to be dismissed as defendants in a series of civil lawsuits filed in the wake of the juvenile justice scandal.


Ciavarella and former Luzerne County Judge Michael Conahan already face criminal charges.

Now, they're seeking judicial immunity from civil lawsuits filed on behalf of hundreds of youths they sentenced.

A federal judge in Wilkes-Barre heard arguments on Wednesday but did not immediately issue a decision.

Immunity is designed to give judges freedom to rule without fear of legal retribution. But plaintiffs' attorneys say the judges' conduct went beyond the scope of normal court business.


Copyright 2009 The Associated Press

[Alatriste]

This is really a case of "I'm shocked, shocked to discover there is corruption going on in this system". Private prisons are a terrible idea.

[Martinus]

Yes, it's one of these "Gee, what could possibly go wrong?" cases.

[The Brain]

At least he didn't send them to a gay shelter.

[Martinus]

At least he didn't send them to a gay shelter.

[HisMajestyBOB]

Weak on crime bleeding heart liberals. 

[Camerus]

I'm curious:  are there any studies on private detention centres vs. state-run ones?  I'm thinking in such basic areas as quality of life, facilities, rates of recidivism, emphasis on religion, employment programs, likelihood to receive parole, etc.

[Alatriste]

Weak on crime bleeding heart liberals. 

Hey, we evil liberals have nothing on principle against being tough on crime. That's the NKVD style!. 

What we don't like is prisons having owners that earn more money the more inmates they have. What's better for the business? A lot of crime & hard sentences, long prison terms, no paroles, and the more recidivism the better.

Oh, and no one leaving court free. No wonder some people act proactively... That must be the very worst misplaced incentives system ever.

[Berkut]

Is there some reason to think this is not an isolated incident?

[Eddie Teach]

6500 convictions is not an incident.

[Berkut]

6500 convictions is not an incident.

Sure it is. It was one court, two judges, and 1 company. Pretty terrible that it went on for so long, but the claim that this result is somehow inevitable given "private" detention facilities has a pretty steep credibility curb to climb. Not real surprising that it is Marty et al making such a claim without any foundation.

So...there are lots of private detention facilities (especially for juveniles) out there - is this stuff going on all the time, or is this an isolated incident?

[DontSayBanana]

Is there some reason to think this is not an isolated incident?

Even if the bribes were collected only by those two judges, it's hardly an isolated incident.  6,500 tainted convictions in 5 years pretty much totally undermines the position of the Luzerne County court.  No juvenile's attorney is going to want to have a case heard by a Luzerne County judge while there's a pending racketeering case and any possibility of other judges being exposed as well; unfortunately, jurisdiction would keep attorneys from filing for a change of venue except for under the most extreme circumstances.  The judicial assignments are probably going to be lots of fun, as they'll most likely scramble judges from other judicial districts.
The court's not going to view this as an incident; it's going to see it as a nightmare for the judicial district's credibility.  Expect a HUGE backlog of appeals and bizarre filings from this.

[Berkut]

Is there some reason to think this is not an isolated incident?

Even if the bribes were collected only by those two judges, it's hardly an isolated incident.  6,500 tainted convictions in 5 years pretty much totally undermines the position of the Luzerne County court.  No juvenile's attorney is going to want to have a case heard by a Luzerne County judge while there's a pending racketeering case and any possibility of other judges being exposed as well; unfortunately, jurisdiction would keep attorneys from filing for a change of venue except for under the most extreme circumstances.  The judicial assignments are probably going to be lots of fun, as they'll most likely scramble judges from other judicial districts.
The court's not going to view this as an incident; it's going to see it as a nightmare for the judicial district's credibility.  Expect a HUGE backlog of appeals and bizarre filings from this.

Appeals? They threw out every single conviction! What is there to appeal?

And of course this is going to destroy the credibility of that court - it SHOULD do exactly that. This is one of the largest and most heinous examples of judicial corruption I have ever heard of.

But again, how is this indicative of some kind of flaw in the system of using private juvenile detention facilities? Maybe it is - maybe this is the inevitable result of such a system - but I have seen no data to suggest that is the case.

[DontSayBanana]

Is there some reason to think this is not an isolated incident?

Even if the bribes were collected only by those two judges, it's hardly an isolated incident.  6,500 tainted convictions in 5 years pretty much totally undermines the position of the Luzerne County court.  No juvenile's attorney is going to want to have a case heard by a Luzerne County judge while there's a pending racketeering case and any possibility of other judges being exposed as well; unfortunately, jurisdiction would keep attorneys from filing for a change of venue except for under the most extreme circumstances.  The judicial assignments are probably going to be lots of fun, as they'll most likely scramble judges from other judicial districts.
The court's not going to view this as an incident; it's going to see it as a nightmare for the judicial district's credibility.  Expect a HUGE backlog of appeals and bizarre filings from this.

Appeals? They threw out every single conviction! What is there to appeal?

And of course this is going to destroy the credibility of that court - it SHOULD do exactly that. This is one of the largest and most heinous examples of judicial corruption I have ever heard of.

But again, how is this indicative of some kind of flaw in the system of using private juvenile detention facilities? Maybe it is - maybe this is the inevitable result of such a system - but I have seen no data to suggest that is the case.

I made no claim about the use of private detention facilities; simply that the court sees this as up to 6,500 incidents caused by systemic bribery.
I'm also not talking about appeals by the convicts, although those are going to be touchy- you can't appeal an acquittal, but if any of these cases have been declared mistrials, they may still be able to be tried without running foul of double jeopardy or exhaustion of the statute of limitations.
What I was talking about is bizarre appeals and motions coming from cases currently in the system.  Juveniles' attorneys are most likely to look at it that these two judges had a pretty complex system in place- until convictions have been handed out and these trials are completed, there's a possibility that any other judge from Luzerne County from that time period could be exposed as part of the racket in court, and counsel will take advantage of that doubt.

[Berkut]

Ahhh, ok. I guess that is possible.