Judges-for-sale, Michael T. Conahan and Mark A. Ciavarella Jr., who single-handedly did more to harm to the children of Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, than any two vicious marauding, predators imaginable, have yet to face their day in court, awaiting trial after their sweetheart plea was nixed by Judge Edwin Kosik of the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
But what about the children? The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has overturned the convictions of about 6,500 kids who appeared before Ciavarella between 2003 and 2008. According to the Times-Leader :
But what about the children? The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has overturned the convictions of about 6,500 kids who appeared before Ciavarella between 2003 and 2008. According to the Times-Leader :
The court based its ruling on allegations that Ciavarella and former judge Michael Conahan accepted millions of dollars from the owner and builder of two juvenile centers the county utilized. The court also found Ciavarella had repeatedly violated the constitutional rights of juveniles.
The decision means all convictions within that time frame will be vacated and the records of the juveniles expunged, or erased. Prosecutors also were barred from retrying any juveniles other than those that remain incarcerated or owe restitution or fines.
While that covers almost all of the children whose lives might otherwise have been irreversibly altered by this outrage, it doesn’t cover all of them. Those children who remain under court supervision will be subject to retrial, with the Luzerne Count District Attorney to notify Berks County Judge Arthur Grim which children should be subject to reprosecution, with Judge Grim then to determine whether to allow it. From the Philly Inquirer :
That leaves about 100 cases that may be reopened – serious offenses in which the defendant was represented by counsel, and is either still incarcerated or involved in the juvenile justice system through probation, treatment, or unpaid fines or restitution.
The Luzerne County District Attorney’s Office has 30 days to identify the defendants it wants to prosecute again. It must then submit the list to Grim, who will determine case by case which should go forward.
Musto Carroll agreed that the convictions in Ciavarella’s courtroom should be vacated, but she wanted to determine which ones to retry.
“We had argued all along that there were a certain class of cases so serious that we cannot just release those kids,” she said. “A lot of them are still in treatment. Also, we have concerns with the victims in these cases. We didn’t want [the accused] barred from being tried.”
While the Supreme Court’s sweeping decision, vacating a monumental number of convictions of children, is the only rational response to this fundamental outrage, possibly the worst indictment of the court system ever, leaving open the potential to retry a handful is an unfortunate bow to the prosecution.
Though it’s likely true that there were guilty amongst the abused innocent or trivial cases that resulted in incarceration, the District Attorney’s argument is disingenuous. Where was Carroll’s concern for justice when Ciavarella and Conahan were tossing kids in jail for staying out past curfew? Their scheme went on for five years right in front of the District Attorney’s nose, and no one gave a damn. Now they are true seekers of justice? Too little too late.
This situation also raises some very curious double jeopardy problems,
For those inclined to be far more concerned with prosecuting crime than with a system even remotely resembling fairness, bear in mind that we are talking about juveniles here, children. These aren’t the ones treated as adults for their heinous crimes, but just kids with problems. Kids with even worse problems given that they were subjected to the scheme of Ciavarella and Conahan. Kids who received none of the protections that one would hope would come from a responsible District Attorney, whose responsibility is to do justice. Just kids.
District Attorney Musto Carroll voices concerns for the victims and for the children in need of treatment. Where was that concern when Ciavarella was shipping them off to jail over nothing? Where was that concern when Ciavarella was convicting them without a hearing? There was no one in a better position to recognize what was happening to 6,500 children in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, than the District Attorney.
Carroll was responsible for protecting these 6,500 children, not just being complicit in the commission of these outrageous crimes by allowing it to happen to child after child right in front of his nose. He failed everyone, especially the children. Enough.
Though it’s likely true that there were guilty amongst the abused innocent or trivial cases that resulted in incarceration, the District Attorney’s argument is disingenuous. Where was Carroll’s concern for justice when Ciavarella and Conahan were tossing kids in jail for staying out past curfew? Their scheme went on for five years right in front of the District Attorney’s nose, and no one gave a damn. Now they are true seekers of justice? Too little too late.
This situation also raises some very curious double jeopardy problems,
Musto Carroll’s recommendations could be contested on double-jeopardy grounds by the Juvenile Law Center, the Philadelphia group whose petition was the basis for Grim’s report. The center called the scheme “one of the largest and most serious violations of children’s rights in the history of the American legal system.”While the effort to retry these children doesn’t come after an acquittal, it does come after a “travesty of justice” dismissal and vacation of the convictions. That these scum judges crimes have reduced every case before them to a nullity, the children who remain under court supervision aren’t to blame for the fact that these judges were able to perpetrate their crimes for years without interference from the District Attorney.
For those inclined to be far more concerned with prosecuting crime than with a system even remotely resembling fairness, bear in mind that we are talking about juveniles here, children. These aren’t the ones treated as adults for their heinous crimes, but just kids with problems. Kids with even worse problems given that they were subjected to the scheme of Ciavarella and Conahan. Kids who received none of the protections that one would hope would come from a responsible District Attorney, whose responsibility is to do justice. Just kids.
District Attorney Musto Carroll voices concerns for the victims and for the children in need of treatment. Where was that concern when Ciavarella was shipping them off to jail over nothing? Where was that concern when Ciavarella was convicting them without a hearing? There was no one in a better position to recognize what was happening to 6,500 children in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, than the District Attorney.
Carroll was responsible for protecting these 6,500 children, not just being complicit in the commission of these outrageous crimes by allowing it to happen to child after child right in front of his nose. He failed everyone, especially the children. Enough.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
When I first read about this case, my initial reaction was where the heck were the prosecutors? Not one of them ever said, “Judge, we need to put a waiver of counsel on the record.” Or did anything else to stop this travesty. Shame on all those people who watched these judges courtrooms for years without speaking up.
Great post. Thank you.
For the District Attorney’s to allow this being an officer of the court, in my opinion should receive some type of punishment. They were keenly aware of what was going on and it would be very interesting to ask of them why they did nothing. It seams they are immune for their actions in all cases like this. People are losing all trust in our system of law due to situations like this.
I have to play devil’s advocate here. (I don’t really have to but was left wondering about the victims of the remaining “100 or so”.)
Is it really a service to the juvenille defendants or their victims for them to be released because the judges in their cases were crooks?
I haven’t been able to determine what the worst of these cases were. Are they rapists who sold crack to toddlers or did they get caught throwing rotten eggs at the neighbors’ houses?
If the latter, then “yes” I can see sending them on their merry way once they’ve wiped down the windows of their victims houses.
If the former, then “no.” They get a retrial.
My instincts tell me that they are somewhere in between the two extremes. In which case, on a case-by-case basis, they should each be individually reviewed.
“Administrative” questions here: Does a prosecutor get to choose in which court a case is heard? What is a “waiver of counsel” and if a prosector did request one, would it be recorded if the judge refused?
The answers to your questions are “it depends.” Usually, more serious crimes by older juveniles are handled in criminal rather than juvenile courts, so it’s unlikely that we’re talking rape or murder. On the other hand, if a person “accused” (key word) of murder is denied his right to counsel or due process in any court, resulting in the eventual dismissal of his case, that’s the end of the ball game, no matter how serious the crime. There’s no reason it would be different for children.
According to Wikipedia, Luzerne County has a population of 319,000, of whom 21% are under the age of 18. That’s 67,000 kids. So 6,500 kids means that about 10% of the kids in the county were convicted in front of these judges over a 5-year period, and the proportion of kids aged 13-18 years old who were convicted must have been much larger. How could this happen without somebody noticing and making an outcry? Or is this a typical number for most places in the US? Even assuming that the judges also heard cases involving children from surrounding counties, all of those counties have much smaller populations than Luzerne, so the proportion of kids being processed through the juvenile justice system must have been enormous.
Thanks for sharing this. I was taken aback when I have read this article. I think that all those people has to face the facts and themselves – who silently watched the involved judges at the court for years, without any word.
Yet to be adjudicated: where were the defense attorneys who represented these kids?
I agree with your point about fairness and that the district attorney’s office had to know something was amiss, but turned a blind eye because a win’s a win. I suspect that some of the Luzerne County criminal defense bar also knew or suspected.
The rot began at the head, but it must have spread downward. More heads should roll.
The beans were spilled by the Juvenile Law Center, which I understand represented many of the kids. As for other defense lawyers, it’s less likely they would have had sufficient overview of the judges’ actions to recognize the trend. The DA, on the other hand, was on every case.
Still, I agree with you that the defense attorneys, whether individually or as a group, should have known and should have acted to protect these kids as well. Plenty of blame to go around on this one.
Michael Conahan is coming to serve his sentence here in Florida, where we are in the process of privatizing our prison system. I’m sure he’ll agree that there’s nothing quite like getting your need for food, clothing, shelter and safety met by folks who have a profit motive and a monopoly.