Leveling the Playing Field: Self-Representation Help

by jlhenschel

Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court has released free information to those seeking to represent themselves in family courts online. The Court has created standardized court forms and a page dedicated to providing access to these forms. The page provides some guidance for those unable to retain counsel and allows individuals to explore the resources available for self-representation.

Why is this news?

According to an article written by Maeve McClenaghan, “Family courts: self-representation hinders justice say magistrates,” 46% of parties in private family courts are self-represented. This leads to many issues or court magistrates, such as time delays, a lack of understanding of court processes by the self-represented party, and concern about the integrity of justice being served. Many voice concern whether “justice is limited to those who can afford it.”

Jerry Karlin, who is the Chair of Families Need Fathers, shares this fear. He is quoted in the article saying, “Representing yourself in court can be incredibly challenging for parents caught up in emotional, high conflict separations, and the stress of these situations means that not all parents are able to present their case effectively. If these parents have trouble speaking in public, or speak English as a second language, their difficulties can be compounded. My fear is that these changes are preventing parents from accessing the family justice system when their cases really need court intervention to be resolved, and that the best interests of children in these families are not being met.”

Regardless of the concerns shared by many in the court system regarding self-representation, not many resources are made available by Pennsylvania courts to counteract the imbalance. A survey regarding self-representation was given to every district court administrator in Pennsylvania was published in 2013. 17% responded that they have a legal library available to the public. 12.7% have handouts or brochures available for those requesting information on self-representation. Only 1.6% responded that there is a self-help center available, and 4.9% have only an information desk.

As far as online information for self-representation goes, the statistics speak for themselves. While 65% of court administrators responded that self-representation information is available on their respective website, only 38.5% responded that there is a specific page dedicated to self-representation information. The information available is extremely limited. Examples of this are that only a small number of websites have court personnel contact information, hours of operation, a calendar, or forms available. The lack of information makes the strain of self-representation even more difficult.

The Supreme Court has begun to remedy some of the inequality by at least giving individuals access to standardized forms throughout the state. The beginning of a self-representation portion on the Supreme Court’s website allows for expansion and may indicate the court system is trying to even the playing field.

See the full report on self-representation information here: https://www.pabar.org/public/probono/SRL%20Survey%20Results%20Aug%202013.pdf

Pennsylvania Takes Stance on Voter Identification Law

by Kelly Knight

In the United States, there is no inclusive law determining whether photo identification must be presented to vote. Some states require photo identification, some accept non-photo identification, and others like Pennsylvania, require no document at all. The clearest description of the differing photo identification laws comes from the National Conference of State Legislatures website which states; some laws require photo identification, others do not require the photo, and for those without the photo there are regulations for what is sufficient.

When a voter does not have photo identification, the states have differing strict and non-strict policies. An example of what may happen in a strict state would be a voter without photo ID casting a provisional ballot and returning within a certain number of days with acceptable ID. If the voter does not return within the time period, their vote is not counted. In the non-strict states, a voter may be permitted to sign an affidavit of identity, be vouched for by a poll worker, or at the end of Election Day poll workers would determine if the voter was eligible by comparing the ballot with another type of verification. These states do not require anything of the voters after they place their vote.

The surface defense made by these strict voter ID law states is that they prevent voter ID fraud. An interesting article found on Vermont State Senator Bernie Sanders webpage, included his opinion that these laws actually “intended to discourage voting”. A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report was requested by Sanders and other state Senators to investigate this argument. Controversially, the studies investigated by the GAO determined in-person voter fraud was infrequent and there was no evidence of it impacting the outcome of any recent election. Fellow United States Senator Richard Durbin served supporters of these strict photo identification laws with his statement, “voter impersonation fraud is virtually non-existent and that these new laws will make it harder for hundreds of thousands of elderly, disabled, minority, young, rural, and low income Americans to exercise their most basic right.”.

Should the states be permitted to implement this seemingly undue burden on its citizens? The Fifteenth Amendment prohibits the government from denying a citizen the right to vote based on their race, color, or previous servitude, the Nineteenth Amendment provides women the right to vote, and the Twenty-Sixth prohibits the denial of citizens 18 years old and over to vote. Most importantly, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides “no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction ‘the equal protection of the laws’”. Is the right to vote considered one of these equal protections? It seems as though states with non-strict policies support every citizen having the right to vote, while states with strict policies only support citizens who possess photo identification having the right to vote.

In January of this year, Pennsylvania Judge Bernard L. McGinley struck down the law requiring voters to show photo identification because it is unconstitutional and places an unreasonable burden on their right to vote. Though the law is Republican-backed, Pennsylvania Republican Governor Tom Corbett stated there would not be appealing the decision. Pennsylvania provides step-by-step directions for anyone, from a college student to a convicted felon, to vote at http://www.votespa.com. One requirement you will not find on the webpage? Photo identification.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/gao-report-voter-identification-laws-2014?inline=file

http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business/voter-id-laws-put-price-on-voting-hurt-turnout

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/pennsylvania-judge-strikes-down-voter-id-law/2014/01/17/472d620e-7fa2-11e3-93c1-0e888170b723_story.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-647/file-3490.pdf?cb=a5ec29

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/pennsylvania-voter-id-law-dead-and-buried

http://www.votespa.com/portal/server.pt/community/home/13514

Happily Ever After… Not Yet.

by stp53

Recently the Sixth Circuit’s decision on same-sex marriage has left our society in outrage not only for but also against their decision. While some believe this to be incorrect, you must focus on the fact that this subject is extremely big and the Supreme Court should state whether or whether not it should be banned. Circuits are entitled to rule however they please regardless of the way other circuits have ruled.

Issues at hand are, same-sex marriage is not a fundamental right, regarding the Constitution it is our governments job to protect tradition marriage, and decision-making is based on “rational basis” test, which is considered the least demanding. Banning same-sex marriage can be solely linked to child rearing by channeling opposite sex couples, who can have children by natural means. The petition also raising an issue under the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause, which usually requires states to recognize official court ordered issues from other stats. Recently, in Ohio, they are refusing to recognize both parents on a birth certificate of an Ohio-born child whom they adopted under a New York court decree. Ohio has a ban on same-sex marriage and they are not forced to list both parents on the child’s birth record.

With so many issues at hand and disagreements it is apparent the Supreme Court is being urged to step in.

Public opinion is beginning to change and has changed greatly over the years. Marriage should always have been viewed as a civil right regardless if its not considered “traditional marriage.” States should not be able to deny marriages because they simply disapprove.

It will be interesting to see how same-sex marriage is viewed not even ten years from now and society quits trying to prohibit social change. It is apparent the ongoing sexual revolution our society is experiencing will continue to grow and it is time it gets acknowledged. Same-sex couples should have the same opportunities as heterosexual couples and this fight will continue to be battled.

First challenge to Sixth Circuit on same-sex marriage (UPDATED)

Penalties for Dialing 911?

by Kelly Knight

Growing up with a crazy younger brother who couldn’t go a day without scraping himself, my mom made sure I knew how to dial 911 and only to call when necessary. In my experience, whenever my brother got into things my mom was always there to take care of him. Whenever I saw the headline, “New PA law protects 911 callers” I was interested in what the law could be protecting callers from. Isn’t the point of calling 911 to get help, or protection, in an emergency?

In Norristown, PA, there is an ordinance that fines landlords if their tenant calls the police more than three times in a four month period for incidents of “disorderly behavior”. Resident Lakisha Briggs was reluctant to call police after already calling twice when her boyfriend attacked her with a brick and piece of glass. When he attacked her for the third time, she feared her landlord would evict her.

My first thought on this ordinance was that it couldn’t be true, a law that penalizes you for seeking help? My opinion was not alone, many public officials share this thought and are fighting to remove the ordinance. Risa Vetri Ferman, Montgomery County District Attorney, made the point that “No crime victim should ever be forced to think twice before calling police for help.”

Thankfully, our State Representative Todd Stephens took action against this ordinance with Act 200. Beginning in January 2015, Norristown victims will be free from worrying about facing penalties or eviction after dialing 911 in an emergency.

ARTICLE – http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/pennsylvania/mc-todd-stephens-911-law-20141130-story.html

Protect Our Youth

by stp53

It has recently been recognized in Harrisburg that children half the smoking age for Pennsylvania are actually laboring in America’s tobacco fields. In relation young children have been found in North Carolina and most of them started in their early teen years. Many will claim they have been in the business for seven to eight years and when they barely reach the age of eighteen it raising a huge red flag. Most major tobacco companies all have policies against child labor, however there is a federal loophole, which at first was intended for family, leaving an extremely gray area. The Human Rights Watch is currently trying to put a stop to this and they have been speaking with many different individuals. An individual by the name of Velasquez recently shared that he began working at the age of six and, “It was either that or eat nothing.” It is rather devastating to hear such disturbing words. It is even more devastating to know there are people out there willing to break the law if it means more money in their pocket.

Our country was able to eliminate almost all child labor off of the farms but have failed to maintain child labor laws when its regarding tobacco fields. It is not unusual for these individuals to work 16-hour days and even if you are old enough to work no one should be required to work that often and for that long. This is easily comparative to when children were working in the mines, but long ago we established unions that negotiated away from these conditions. It is apparent that the union won many fights in the mines of Pennsylvania, but still has much fighting to do in the fields.

This is an issue that should no longer be problematic. Child labor laws were developed years ago and it is disturbing that anyone would be willing to go against this policy. It is our job to protect our youth, instead of placing them to work long, excruciating days, with minimum pay in tobacco fields. The Pennsylvania Child Labor Law (CLL) was enacted to “provide for the health, safety, and welfare of minors by forbidding their employment or work in certain establishments and occupations, and under certain specified ages.” It is clearly stated in the CLL that if you are under the age of eighteen you are a minor. The CLL also states that if you are under the age of sixteen you are not permitted to work in general. These laws are being violated and this is an extremely important issue that I believe most people pay little attention to.

ARTICLE IN RELATION:

http://www.publicnewsservice.org/2014-11-03/childrens-issues/child-labor-in-americas-tobacco-fields/a42606-1

An Experience With Child Support Calculation

by Kelly Knight

I spent this past summer as a paralegal intern at two law firms. Some of the work was very dry, but I also had a few opportunities to travel outside of the office. On one occasion, we spent the day at the Court of Common Pleas downtown. The building is chaotic with lawyers and other people rushing past to get where they need to be. Once we met up with my supervisor, Mr. O’Connor’s, client, we rode the elevator to the correct floor and he signed in.

The reason we went to the Court of Common Pleas was to adjust his client’s child support payment. Whenever there are changes in the finances for children and/or parents, the parents meet with a domestic relations officer to update the amount for the non-custodial parent to pay. Also, after a child turns 18 or graduates high school, whichever is later, the parent is relieved of paying child support. In our case, Mr. O’Connor’s client had an eighteen year-old child who was graduating high school and one who recently enrolled in sports.

It was eye-opening to see the factors that go into determining a child support payment. Before this I naively assumed that it was just the parent’s incomes that would determine the child support amount. Not only is this a factor, but also the child’s standard of living prior to the parent’s divorce and the child’s needs. In the specific meeting I sat in on, the new agreement was for the client to pay half of the children’s insurances, doctor’s bills, and for sport equipment. After the officer took note of the parent’s incomes, taxes, factored in the children’s bills, and removed the oldest child’s support, we all sat there in tense silence while she calculated the amount.

The other amusing parts of this meeting were the unexpected comebacks amongst the two parents. In our meeting there were quite a few utterances which became louder when the two disagreed, but the domestic relations officer quietly mentioned to me that we just missed the exciting argument that happened outside of her office. Overall, the meeting was a learning experience for me. Not many students will get the opportunity to sit in on a child support meeting of anyone besides their own parents.

The Court of Common Pleas

by ADeStefano

 

Recently I had the opportunity to experience a morning in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas. The Court of Common Pleas is the state trial court of general jurisdiction, which handles everything from family law to nuisance suits and from discrimination claims to criminal cases. In short, that court handles any cases not specifically assigned by law to a minor state court—like traffic court. In addition, it hears appeals from those minor courts.

During my visit, the court was hearing a number of criminal plea bargains and imposing sentence on the defendants. Of the 18 defendants in the courtroom that day, all pled guilty in pursuant to a deal that was worked out between their defense attorneys and the Assistant District Attorney prosecuting their cases.

In one of the cases, a defendant charged with criminal trespass entered a pre-trail diversion program in order to avoid formal criminal charges. The defendant had a documented history of mental illness but no criminal record. As a result, the Assistant District Attorney agreed to place him in the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition program. Like many pre-trial diversion programs, it is designed to allow first-time offenders to avoid criminal charges through an intensive monitoring program, somewhat like the traditional parole or probation programs. If participants complete the program, the criminal case against them is dismissed and their record is expunged.

 

Defendent’s Competency and Law

by ADeStefano

Residents in Pittsburgh’s West Mifflin neighborhood were frightened briefly last Friday night after a man fired his gun outside of his home. The crazed man hit transformers, which resulted in many of the homes being evacuated, and bomb squads brought to the scene.

Jill Krivanek, a resident in the neighborhood where the events took place, stated that, “he fired several rounds into the air, and then fired twice, hitting transformers that were on utility poles along the 500-block of Nordeen Drive.”

Rumors have it that the 63-year old man, who generally kept to himself, went into a rage after a dispute with his TV cable provider. He simply wanted his cable shut off and the cable provider declined his request. The police however were able to disarm the unstable man without any resistance. The people of West Mifflin are very grateful that no one was hurt in this startling incident. Sgt. Michael Hasson of the West Mifflin Police Department stated that, “There was kerosene spread throughout the house that you could smell, and some doors had ropes on them, and we didn’t know if they were traps, so we wanted to make sure the scene was safe before we let the neighbors back in,”

This man is undoubtedly mentally unstable and needs to be under the care and supervision of medical professionals. He is now being treated at a local hospital and a psych evaluation is being conducted. The legal question is what was the mans mental state at the time of the crime and just how competent is he currently in order to defend himself. Competency in a legal sense is defined, as, “the mental capacity of an individual to participate in legal proceedings or transactions, and the mental condition a person must have to be responsible for his or her decisions or acts.”

The Criminal Justice Mental Health Standards states that, “in 1994 that the issue of a defendant’s current mental incompetence is the most important issue in the criminal mental health field, noting that an estimated 24,000 to 60,000 forensic evaluations of a criminal defendant’s competency for trial were performed every year.”

State Grant Connects Western Pennsylvania Trails

by ADeStefano

For years hikers in Allegheny County have likely wondered why they are not able to directly access the nearby trails in Armstrong, Butler or Westmoreland. The reason is a simple matter of property law: the 20 acres between the various trails was still in private hands. As a result, the county could not build a connecting trail in the area and hikers that attempted to trek from one trail to another would technically be trespassing.

In late October, the Commonwealth Financing Authority finally resolved the problem by announcing a $200,000 grant to connect Allegheny County’s trails to the others in the area. The bulk of the money will go to purchase the land between the trails, while the remainder will be used to build, improve and maintain the various trails.

John Stephen, an attorney from Aspinwall involved with the Rachel Carson Trails Conservancy stated that, “There’s a confluence of trails that come together here and we’ve been trying to find a way to link them together.” They no longer need to try and find a way to bring them together with the money they have been awarded from the state the project will be ready to go. As a result of this grant, the Tredway trail in Allegheny will soon join with the Rachel Carson and Bulter-Freeport trails and Allegheny county hikers will finally be able to join the larger regional system of outdoorsmen.

Supreme Court Justice Scandal

by ADeStefano

In recent months, the normally quiet chambers of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court have been rocked by scandal. Allegations have been made that a Supreme Court Justice, Seamus McCaffery, abused his position to avoid a traffic ticket, funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars in referral fees to his wife, sent hundreds of pornographic emails to state employees and attempted to blackmail a fellow Justice to keep the email scandal quiet.

After the allegations emerged, the FBI began an investigation into potential corruption in the high court. A previous federal investigation had resulted in the indictment of nine elected traffic court judges on fraud charges. Those judges, like Justice McCaffery, were accused of improperly fixing traffic tickets. After that investigation, the FBI uncovered rumors that the Justice also improperly involved himself in the traffic court and directed at least 19 large referral fees to his wife in personal injury actions. Ultimately, however, the federal government ultimately opted not to charge Justice McCaffery with a crime.

In addition to the criminal investigation, the State Judicial Conduct Board launched a review of Justice McCaffery’s sexually explicit emails to state employees. While the board could not impose any criminal charges, it was empowered to remove him from office if it found he engaged in misconduct.

Chief Justice Castille, a long-time critic of Justice McCaffery, issued a statement condemning him for sending hundreds of such emails to a friend in the state attorney’s office. Although McCaffery apologized for sending the messages, he claimed that his enemies, including Castille, were using the emails to attack his position.

The plot thickened when Justice Eakin revealed that McCaffery had attempted to blackmail him. According to Eakin, McCaffery threatened to reveal embarrassing emails he sent unless he retracted his statements against McCaffery. Based largely on the state board investigation and Eakin’s allegations, the remaining Justice votes 4-to-1 to suspend McCaffery.

Before the board could finish its review, Justice McCaffery resigned and agreed to never again seek judicial office in Pennsylvania. As a result, the board dropped its investigation and the Supreme Court ended his suspension.

Although the scandal appears to have come to a close with Justice McCaffery’s retirement, the entire sordid episode begs the question: does electing Justices really make sense? Unlike federal courts where judges are appointed for life, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justices are elected for ten-year terms. Since elections largely turn on personnal charisma and party connections, foregoing elections may help reduce the potential for such scandals in the future. Instead, by appointing Justices based on merit, we may see a Supreme Court where the focus is properly on the cases and issues, rather than sordid tabloid affairs.