DOCSLIB.ORG

Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ______

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ______ No. __________________ ___________________________________ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ___________________________________ MARK A. CIAVARELLA, JR. – PETITIONER VS. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA – RESPONDENT ______________________________________ ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________________________________ PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI Jennifer P. Wilson, Esquire PHILPOTT WILSON LLP 227 N. High St., P.O. Box 116 Duncannon, PA 17020 717-834-3087 - Phone 717-834-5437 - Fax QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether Petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel as a result of the deprivation of a viable statute of limitations defense with respect to the honest services mail fraud counts? II. Whether Petitioner established cause and actual prejudice to overcome procedural default as to the claim that the trial court’s jury instructions were inconsistent with this Court’s decision in McDonnell v. United States, and further established that the jury instructions were erroneous and prejudicial? -i- LIST OF PARTIES All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. LIST OF PRIOR PROCEEDINGS 1. United States v. Mark A. Ciavarella, Jr., 3-09-cr-00272-002 (Middle District of Pennsylvania); judgment entered on August 11, 2011. 2. United States v. Ciavarella, 716 F.3d 705 (3d Cir. 2013); direct appeal opinion entered on May 24, 2013. 3. United States v. Ciavarella, No. 11-3277 (3d Cir. 2013); order denying rehearing entered on July 24, 2013. 4. Ciavarella v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1491 (2014); order denying petition for writ of certiorari entered on March 3, 2014. 5. United States v. Mark A. Ciavarella, Jr., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2785 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 8, 2018); opinion granting in part and denying in part 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition. 6. United States v. Mark A. Ciavarella, Jr., Nos. 18-1489 & 18-1499, 765 Fed. Appx. 855, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 9421 (3d Cir. March 29, 2019); opinion affirming district court opinion. 7. United States v. Mark A. Ciavarella, Jr., Nos. 18-1489 & 18-1499 (3d Cir. 2019); order denying rehearing entered on May 7, 2019. -ii- TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE OPINIONS BELOW............................................................1 JURISDICTION...............................................................2 CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ..................3 STATEMENT OF THE CASE....................................................4 A. Procedural Background..............................................4 B. Factual Background ................................................6 C. District Court Opinion..............................................7 D. The Circuit Court Opinion ...........................................8 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION......................................9 I. CIAVARELLA WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AS A RESULT OF THE DEPRIVATION OF A VIABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE WITH RESPECT TO THE HONEST SERVICES MAIL FRAUD COUNTS...........................................10 A. The Lower Courts Correctly Concluded That Trial Counsel’s Failure to Pursue and Preserve a Viable Statute of Limitations Defense Was Prejudicial with Respect to the Conspiracy Counts. ................10 B. The Third Circuit’s Denial of Relief With Respect to the Honest Services Mail Fraud Convictions Relied on Facts That Are Not of Record and Ignores Crucial Legal Arguments. .............................11 1. The Third Circuit Relied on Facts That Are Not of Record .....11 2. The Third Circuit Reached An Important Conclusion That is Not Supported by the Record................................13 3. The Third Circuit Affords Undue Significance to the Opinion on Direct Appeal........................................18 -iii- TABLE OF CONTENTS, CONT’D PAGE 4. The Third Circuit Ignored the Crucial Legal Argument that Honest Services Mail Fraud Is Not a Continuing Offense ............19 II. CIAVARELLA ESTABLISHED CAUSE AND PREJUDICE TO OVERCOME PROCEDURAL DEFAULT AS TO THE CLAIM THAT THE TRIAL COURT’S JURY INSTRUCTIONS WERE INCONSISTENT WITH THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISION IN MCDONNELL V. UNITED STATES, AND FURTHER ESTABLISHED THAT THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS WERE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL..................................23 A. Ciavarella Established “Cause” to Excuse the Failure to Challenge the Jury Instruction on “Official Act”. ............................23 B. Ciavarella Has Established “Actual Prejudice” from the Erroneous Jury Instruction on “Official Act.”. ............................25 CONCLUSION ..............................................................31 -iv- INDEX TO APPENDICES APPENDIX A, Not precedential Opinion of United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, dated March 29, 2019. APPENDIX B, Order denying Petition for Rehearing of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, dated May 7, 2019. APPENDIX C, Memorandum Opinion of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, dated January 8, 2018. -v- TABLE OF AUTHORITIES PAGE FEDERAL CASES Supreme Court Reed v. Ross, 468 U.S. 1 (1984) .................................................25 Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010) ......................................14 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) .......................................7 Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112 (1970) .......................................20 United States v. McDonnell, __ U.S. __, 136 S Ct. 2355 (2016) ..................... passim Circuit Court United States v. Barger, 178 F.3d 844 (7th Cir. 1999) .................................21 United States v. Calvert, 523 F.2d 895 (8th Cir. 1975) .................................21 United States v. Ciavarella, 716 F.3d 705 (3d Cir. 2013) .......................... passim United States v. Coutentos, 651 F.3d 809 (8th Cir. 2011) ...........................15, 17 United States v. Howard, 350 F.3d 125 (D.C. Cir. 2003)...............................21 United States v. Jake, 281 F.3d 123 (3d Cir. 2002) ...................................15 United States v. Miro, 29 F.3d 194 (5th Cir. 1994) ....................................21 United States v. Murphy, 323 F.3d 102 (3d Cir. 2003).................................17 United States v. Niven, 952 F.2d 289 (9th Cir. 1991) ..................................21 United States v. Pelullo, 399 F.3d 197 (3d Cir. 2005) ..............................24, 25 United States v. Seligsohn, 981 F.2d 1418 (3d Cir. 1992) ..............................21 United States v. Siddons, 660 F.3d 699 (3d Cir. 2011).................................20 -vi- TABLE OF AUTHORITIES, CONT’D PAGE United States v. Silver, 864 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S.Ct. 738 (Jan. 16, 2018)................................ passim United States v. Span, 75 F.3d 1383 (9th Cir. 1996) ................................15, 17 United States v. Wright, 665 F.3d 560 (3d Cir. 2012) ................................14 United States v. Yashar, 166 F.3d 873 (7th Cir. 1999) .................................21 District Court Cordaro v. United States, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143347, 2017 WL 3839916 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 1, 2017) ..................................24 United States v. Jefferson, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165824 (E.D. Va. Oct. 4, 2017).......27, 29 United States v. Vederman, 225 F. Supp. 3d 308 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 21, 2016).................24 United States v. Sunia, 643 F. Supp. 2d 51 (D.D.C. 2009)..............................21 FEDERAL STATUTES 18 U.S.C. § 2...............................................................4, 20 18 U.S.C. § 3..................................................................4 18 U.S.C. § 371................................................................4 18 U.S.C. § 666................................................................4 18 U.S.C. § 1341............................................................4, 20 18 U.S.C. § 1343...............................................................4 18 U.S.C. § 1346............................................................4, 20 18 U.S.C. § 1951...............................................................4 18 U.S.C. § 1956...............................................................4 -vii- TABLE OF AUTHORITIES, CONT’D PAGE 18 U.S.C. § 1962...............................................................4 26 U.S.C. § 7206...............................................................4 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) ............................................................2 28 U.S.C. § 2255...............................................................5 MISCELLANEOUS Jeffrey R. Boles, Easing the Tension Between Statute of Limitations and the Continuing Offense Doctrine, 7 NW. J. L. & SOC. POL’Y, 219, 247-249 (2012) .............................21 -viii- IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. OPINIONS BELOW The not precedential opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit appears in Appendix A to this petition, and is reported at United States v. Mark A. Ciavarella, Jr., Nos. 18-1489 & 18-1499, 765 Fed. Appx. 855, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 9421 (3d Cir. March 29, 2019). The order denying Ciavarella’s petition for rehearing by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit appears in Appendix B to this petition, and is dated May 7, 2019. The memorandum opinion of the United States District Court
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lessons from Luzerne County: Promoting Fairness, Transparency and Accountability
    Lessons from Luzerne County: Promoting Fairness, Transparency and Accountability Recommendations to the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice Acknowledgements Investigating and preparing recommendations for reform in the wake of the Luzerne County scandal has been an enormous undertaking. The scandal is about more than “judicial corruption.” Its unveiling has revealed layers of issues, both simple and complicated. Juvenile Law Center has learned from our investigations, and from that of the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice. We have spent many months developing our recommendations, with the hope that such a scandal will never happen again. We needed help to complete this project—which we hope will not only benefit Pennsylvania children, but those whose lives are touched by the juvenile justice system across the country. Fortunately, help was available from many sources. We thank the many volunteer lawyers and law students who provided invaluable assistance by researching and compiling information for these reports. In particular, we would like to thank Adam Brown, Lesli Esposito, Kate Frenzinger, Richard Gruenberger, Peter Lindau and John Huh of DLA Piper; Christopher Burdett, Mark DiPerna, France Jaffe, Alice Jensen, and Suzanne Turner of Dechert LLP; Amanda Harber of Rutgers School of Law – Camden; and David Lapp of Education Law Center-PA. We also acknowledge Juvenile Law Center staff and interns who contributed to this report through their writing, editing, proofreading, and cite-checking, in particular Riya S. Shah, who shepherded this effort, as well as Andrew Kromer, Robert G. Schwartz, Marsha L. Levick, Emily Keller, Neha Desai, Katherine Burdick, Kristina Moon, Terry Schuster, Rosie McNamara-Jones, Jessica Jones, and James Wang.
    [Show full text]
  • Models for Change Summary
    News Summary February 18 –March 4, 2011 Pennsylvania Summary Associated Press (AP) – Allentown Bureau ‘Pa. judge guilty of racketeering in kickback case’ – February 18, 2011 Posted on: http://pottsmerc.com/articles/2011/02/18/news/doc4d5ee937a6cd9029458749.txt A former juvenile court judge was convicted Friday of racketeering in a case that accused him of sending youth offenders to for-profit detention centers in exchange for millions of dollars in illicit payments from the builder and owner of the lockups… The Times Leader (Wilkes-Barre) ‘Law seeks to correct its wrongs’ – February 19, 2011 http://www.timesleader.com/news/Law_seeks_to_correct_its_wrongs_02-18-2011.html State Sen. Lisa Baker said the verdicts in the Mark Ciavarella corruption trial “confirm what our community has painfully learned over two years.”…Baker, R-Lehman Twp., has launched a push for juvenile justice reform by introducing a series of bills to protect the fundamental rights of kids entering the system… The Morning Call (Allentown) ‘Ciavarella had some help perpetrating his crimes’ – February 19, 2011 http://articles.mcall.com/2011-02-19/news/mc-paul-carpenter-ciavarella-20110219_1_juvenile-law- center-ciavarella-and-conahan-judge-mark-ciavarella Justice, a word that probably is not in former so-called Judge Mark Ciavarella's vocabulary, has finally been served. Ciavarella was convicted Friday on 12 federal counts involving a scheme in Luzerne County to put thousands of children in commercial juvenile detention facilities in return for millions in payoffs from the operators of the facilities…As early as 2005, the Supremes, responsible for the integrity of all courts in the state, were informed that something very bad was happening in Luzerne County.
    [Show full text]
  • “I Wanted Them to Be Scared out of Their Minds.”
    “I Wanted Them To Be Scared Out Of Their Minds.” – Judge Mark A. Ciavarella Presented by: SenArt Films www.KidsForCashTheMovie.com Runtime: 102 minutes Press notes as of: 1/13/14 PRESS NOTES CONTACTS ........................................................................................................ 3 ABOUT THE STORY ............................................................................................. 4 ABOUT THE PRODUCTION .................................................................................... 5 ABOUT THE KIDS .............................................................................................. 12 ABOUT THE FILMMAKER ..................................................................................... 15 CREDITS .......................................................................................................... 17 KIDS_FOR_CASH_Press_Kit_011314.docx Page 2 of 25 CONTACTS Press Contacts: New York - Los Angeles - Philadelphia/Pittsburgh/Erie- Emma Griffiths Sylvia Desrochers Michael Foell Emma Griffiths PR Big Time PR & Marketing Lisa Jefferson (917)-806-0599 - Cell (424) 208-3496 - Office Jesse Cute [email protected] (213)-840-2309 - Cell Allied Integrated Marketing [email protected] 2001 Market St., Ste. 510, Issue Related Press - Philadelphia, PA 19103 Marie Yeager Northeast Pennsylvania - (215) 496-0675 - Office Roda Creative Services Ruth Corcoran [email protected] (717) 699-2206 - Office Corcoran Communications [email protected] (717) 817-3333 - Cell 410 Crescent Road [email protected]
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA H.T. ET AL., CONSOLIDATED Civil Action No. 3:09-cv-0286 Plaintiffs, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED v. AMENDED MARK A. CIAVARELLA, JR. ET AL., MASTER COMPLAINT – FOR CLASS ACTIONS Defendants. (Civil Action No. 3:09-cv-0357) ------------------------------------------------ WILLIAM CONWAY ET AL., (Civil Action No. 3:09-cv-0291) Plaintiffs, v. JUDGE: A. RICHARD MICHAEL T. CONAHAN ET AL., CAPUTO Defendants. [ELECTRONICALLY FILED] AMENDED MASTER COMPLAINT – FOR CLASS ACTIONS INTRODUCTION 1. With utter disdain for the rule of law, defendants Mark A. Ciavarella, Jr. and Michael T. Conahan, in combination and conspiracy with other defendants named herein, have collectively perpetrated, through their acts and omissions, what ranks as one of the largest and most serious violations of children’s rights in the history of the American legal system. Both in its duration, spanning approximately five years between 2003 and 2008 – and its magnitude, inflicting damage on the lives of thousands of children and their families – the scope of defendants’ unlawful scheme is profoundly shocking. In choosing to treat children as commodities that could be traded for cash, the defendants have placed an indelible stain on the Luzerne County juvenile justice system. 2. Specifically, defendants Ciavarella and Conahan engaged for years in a brazen scheme to accept financial kickbacks from defendants Powell, Mericle, and others in exchange for placing children appearing before Ciavarella in residential
    [Show full text]
  • Ciavarella Summary Judgment Memorandum
    Case 3:09-cv-00286-ARC Document 1510 Filed 01/09/14 Page 1 of 23 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA FLORENCE WALLACE, et al., Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:09-cv-286 v. ROBERT J. POWELL, et al., (JUDGE CAPUTO) Defendants. ****************************************************************************************************** IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAM CONWAY, et al., Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:09-cv-0291 v. MICHAEL T. CONAHAN, et al., (JUDGE CAPUTO) Defendants. ****************************************************************************************************** IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA H.T., et al., Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:09-cv-0357 v. (JUDGE CAPUTO) MARK A. CIAVARELLA, JR., et al., Defendants. ****************************************************************************************************** Case 3:09-cv-00286-ARC Document 1510 Filed 01/09/14 Page 2 of 23 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA SAMANTHA HUMANIK, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:09-cv-0630 v. (JUDGE CAPUTO) MARK A. CIAVARELLA, JR., et al., Defendants. ****************************************************************************************************** IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA RAUL CLARK, et al., Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:09-cv-0357 v. (JUDGE CAPUTO) MICHAEL T. CONAHAN, et al., Defendants. *****************************************************************************************************
    [Show full text]
  • Kids for Cash”
    SELLING KIDS SHORT: HOW “RIGHTS FOR KIDS” TURNED INTO “KIDS FOR CASH” Martin Guggenheim∗ and Randy Hertz+ INTRODUCTION The opportunity to celebrate the fortieth anniversary of the founding of Juvenile Law Center (JLC)—and the remarkable career of its cofounder, Bob Schwartz, who is stepping down as its Executive Director after forty years of service—is a dream for law professors like us, who specialize in juvenile justice. It provides us with a natural context for reflecting on the peaks and valleys of juvenile justice during the forty-year period in which JLC has worked prodigiously and tirelessly to protect individual children and to establish broad- based protections for youth.1 In this Article, we will use one of JLC’s many victories, the case of the so- called “kids for cash” scandal of Luzerne County, Pennsylvania in 2008–2009, to look at the current state of juvenile justice and to look back at how we got here. This was a case so bizarre and shocking that it is still difficult to believe it could have happened, let alone that it could have taken place in the modern era. Over the course of roughly a decade, two judges in the western part of Pennsylvania made millions of dollars by wrongfully imprisoning more than 1,800 children in a private juvenile prison that kicked money back to the judges.2 Section I of this Article recounts the story. It is a tale with a hero (JLC, which came to the rescue of the kids, as it has in so many other cases), a couple of villains (the judges, of course), and a large backup cast of prosecutors, defenders, probation officers, and others who apparently turned a blind eye to flagrant abuses that occurred regularly over the span of many years.
    [Show full text]
  • ‌Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice.Pdf
    INTERBRANCH COMMISSION ON JUVENILE JUSTICE Report ON ISSI O M N M J O U C V E N H I C L L E E N N A A J J R R U U B B S S R R T T E E I I C C T T E E N N I I ★ MAY 2010 e record of the commission's hearings is available on the Web site of Pennsylvania's Unified Judicial System at: http://www.pacourts.us/Links/Public/InterbranchCommissionJuvenileJustice.htm ★ HON . J OHN M. CLELAND , C HAIR e Honorable Edward G. Rendell e Honorable Ronald D. Castille TOD C. A LLEN Governor of Pennsylvania Chief Justice of Pennsylvania VALERIE BENDER e Honorable Dominic Pileggi e Honorable Robert J. Mellow KENNETH J. H OROHO , J R., E SQUIRE Majority Leader Democratic Leader Senate of Pennsylvania Senate of Pennsylvania HON . J AMES A. G IBBONS JASON J. L EGG , E SQUIRE e Honorable Todd A. Eachus e Honorable Samuel H. Smith Majority Leader Republican Leader ROBERT L. L ISTENBEE , E SQUIRE Pennsylvania House of Representatives Pennsylvania House of Representatives GEORGE D. M OSEE , J R., E SQUIRE e Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice was created last August with a HON . J OHN C. U HLER mandate to investigate the juvenile justice scandal in Luzerne County and to develop appropriate recommendations for reform. Since then we have held eleven days of RONALD P. WILLIAMS hearings and received testimony from sixty-eight witnesses, some more than once. HON . D WAYNE D. WOODRUFF In the attached report we have developed a comprehensive account of what occurred DARREN BRESLIN , E SQUIRE in the courtrooms of Luzerne County.
    [Show full text]
  • Directed Study Juvenile Justice Pipeline from Elementary School To
    Directed Study Juvenile Justice Pipeline from Elementary School to Prison In The United States of America By James S. Paicopolos Introduction Teaching practices and child behavior management policy and practices both at home and in School in the United States have been unable or contribute to the United States having the highest incarceration rate in the world. Some schools not been a pipeline from elementary school to prison. These schools tend to be far from the inner city schools, and located in wealthy school districts. However, in many inner city school districts, the hard line taken toad elementary school students cannot be understated, as contributing to the conduit from school to prison. Hispanic and Black children, tend to reside in the inner city schools, in locations where there is a high rate of incarceration. "The school to prison pipeline” has many factors. To protect children from real danger from intruders, there are downs and makes the school begin to look more like a prison, where the "inmates" cannot leave and are isolated from the regular population. Disruptive Children are often given drugs, to control their behavior, which also serves as a chemical restraint. Just today, I heard from a parent complaining about her 7 year old not being able to control his behavior even though he was taking Ritalin 20 mg in the morning and 10 mg in the afternoon. He had originally begun taking this medication to manage his behavior. Yet the drugs, according to his mother was not effective in controlling this child’s behavior. The policies, which occur in some schools, end up having some school programs, being more like a jail than a school.
    [Show full text]
  • Crafting an Exception to Absolute Judicial Immunity
    GIVING NEW MEANING TO “JUSTICE FOR ALL”: CRAFTING AN EXCEPTION TO ABSOLUTE JUDICIAL IMMUNITY Brittney Kern 2014 MICH.ST.L.REV.149 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................... 150 I. ABSOLUTE JUDICIAL IMMUNITY THROUGH THE YEARS ......... 153 A. Origins of Absolute Judicial Immunity........................... 154 B. Modern Case Law Featuring Absolute Judicial Immunity......................................................................... 158 1. Stump v. Sparkman................................................... 159 2. Forrester v. White ..................................................... 161 3. Mireles v. Waco........................................................ 163 II. THE DUTY OF JUDGES TO ACT ETHICALLY ............................. 165 A. Historical Background of the Model Code of Judicial Conduct ........................................................................... 166 B. The Current State of the Model Code of Judicial Conduct ........................................................................... 169 1. General Impropriety ................................................. 170 2. Judicial Bias ............................................................. 171 3. Extrajudicial Financial Compensation..................... 173 III. THE NEED TO RECONSIDER ABSOLUTE JUDICIAL IMMUNITY . 175 A. An Exception to Absolute Judicial Immunity ................. 176 1. Sanctionable Activity ................................................ 177 2. Malicious Intent.......................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Report to the General Assem.Bly, Governor Edward G
    Ho:\. JOHN M. CLELA~J), CHAIR The Honorable Edward G. Rendell The Honorable Ronald D. Castille TaD C. ALLEN Governor ofPennsylvania ChiefJus tice ofPennsylvania VALERIE BE~J)ER The Honorable Dominic Pileggi The Honorable Robert J. Mellow KICNNETH 1. HOROHO, JR., ESQUIRf. Majority Leader Democratic Leader Senate of Pennsylvania Senate ofPennsylvania Ho:\. JA:VII,S A. GJJJBONS JASON J. LE(;(;. ESQUIRF. The Honorable Todd A. Eachus The Honorable Samuel H. Smith Majority Leader Republican Leader ROBERT L. L!STENBEE, ESQUl1(E Pennsylvania House ofRepresentatives Pennsylvania House ofRepresentatives GEOI(C;I' D. [v'lOSEE, JR., ESQUIRE The Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice was created last August with a Ho,\. JOliN C. UHI.ER mandate to investigate the juvenile justice scandal in Luzerne County and to develop appropriate recommendations for reform. Since then we have held eleven days of RU:\ALll P. Wll.L1AMS hearings and received testimony from sixty-eight witnesses, some more than once. Ho,\. DWA'NIi D. WOOIWIJW In the attached report we have developed a comprehensive account ofwhat occurred DARREN BRESLlN. ESQUIRE in the courtrooms of Luzerne County. It is our hope that based on our understanding COMMISSJ()N COUNSEl. ofhow the juvenile justice system was undermined in one county we have developed recommendations that will avoid it from happening in any other county. \Vhile the tragic events in Luzerne County have drawn criticism nationwide, and rightly so, it is also true that Pennsylvania is an acknowledged national leader in the field ofjuvenile justice. r111e outstanding commitment ofour juvenile court judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, probation officers, victim advocates and service providers should not be overshadowed by the actions of those who have damaged that reputation.
    [Show full text]
  • Case: 3:09-Cv-286 As Of: 06/29/2018 04:37 PM EDT 1 of 341
    Case: 3:09-cv-286 As of: 06/29/2018 04:37 PM EDT 1 of 341 LEAD,MM,SCR United States District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania (Scranton) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:09−cv−00286−ARC Wallace v. Powell et al Date Filed: 02/12/2009 Assigned to: Honorable A. Richard Caputo Jury Demand: Both Related Cases: 3:09−cv−00357−ARC Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other 3:09−cv−00291−ARC Jurisdiction: Federal Question 3:09−cv−00630−ARC 3:09−cv−02535−ARC 3:10−cv−00797−ARC 3:10−cv−01405−ARC Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act Plaintiff Florence Wallace represented by David S. Senoff Individually and on behalf of all others Anapol Weiss similarly situated and as the parent of One Logan Square B.W., a minor, on behalf of her daughter 130 N. 18th St. individually and on behalf of all others Suite 1600 similarly situated. Philadelphia, PA 19103 215−735−1130 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Lauren C. Fantini Caroselli Beachler McTiernan & Conboy 1845 Walnut Street 15th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 215.609.1350 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michael J. Cefalo Cefalo & Associates 309 Wyoming Avenue West Pittston, PA 18643 570−655−5555 Fax: 6555100 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Richard C. DeFrancesco Caroselli Beachler McTiernan & Conboy 1845 Walnut Street 15th Philadelphia, PA 19103 215.609.1350 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED William R. Caroselli Caroselli, Beachler, McTiernan & Conboy LLC 20 Stanwix Street 7th Floor Case: 3:09-cv-286 As of: 06/29/2018 04:37 PM EDT 2 of 341 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 412−391−9860 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Barry H.
    [Show full text]
  • ‌November 9, 2009.Pdf
    INTERBRANCH COMMISSION ON JUVENILE JUSTICE Opening Statement of the Hon. John M. Cleland, Commission Chair November 9, 2009 Good afternoon. I am John Cleland, a judge of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania and Chairman of the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice. Today, ten weeks after being organized, and nearly eleven months after the original indictments against Michael Conahan and Mark Ciavarella were returned by the United States Attorney, this Commission begins our hearings here in Wilkes Barre. Many of you might be aware of the work we have already done over the last two and a half months. Perhaps you may have read in the newspaper about the hearing we held in Harrisburg last month or may even have watched it on television. But before we begin to hear from the witnesses who have been called to testify during the next two days it is important to keep in mind the purpose of this Commission’s work. The Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice was created by the three branches of state government: the judiciary, the legislature, and the executive. We have been directed to conduct a noncriminal investigation into the failure of the juvenile justice system, to take steps designed to restore public confidence in the administration of justice, and to make recommendations to avoid a repeat of such a breakdown elsewhere in Pennsylvania. Our focus is on the juvenile justice system. We are not blind to the fact that as events have unfolded during the last year, there have been investigations and indictments that have extended far beyond what went on within the confines of Mark Ciavarella’s courtroom.
    [Show full text]