Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog
PA Department of Corrections to Establish Temporary Program to Reprieve Sentences of Incarceration
The Department of Corrections has provided the following information regarding temporary releases from prison for state inmates who are close to completing their sentences:
Harrisburg, PA – Under the authority granted to him by the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Emergency Management Services Code, Governor Tom Wolf today ordered Department of Corrections officials to establish a Temporary Program to Reprieve Sentences of Incarceration to help aid the department in the transfer of qualifying individuals to community corrections facilities or home confinement amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Wolf Administration continues to take every possible action – and asks all Pennsylvanians to do the same – to help stop the spread of COVID-19. These actions, including those in the state corrections system, will save lives, help stop the spread of the virus and avoid overwhelming our already-burdened health care system.
“We can reduce our non-violent prison population and leave fewer inmates at risk for contracting COVID-19 while maintaining public safety with this program,” Gov. Wolf said. “I am pleased to direct the Department of Corrections to begin the process to release vulnerable and non-violent inmates at or nearing their release dates in an organized way that maintain supervision post-release and ensures home and health care plans are in place for all reentrants.”
The Temporary Program to Reprieve Sentences of Incarceration Program only applies to state prison inmates who have been identified as being non-violent and who otherwise would be eligible for release within the next 9 months or who are considered at high risk for complications of coronavirus and are within 12 months of their release.
“Just as everyone in the community is dealing with COVID-19, the state prison system is doing the same,” Corrections Sec. John Wetzel said. “We must reduce our inmate population to be able to manage this virus. Without this temporary program, we are risking the health, and potentially lives, of employees and inmates. We can safely release individuals to the community to reduce their vulnerability and allow the department to successfully manage COVID-19.
“Without any current legislation, we are moving forward with the understanding that future legislation could further advance these efforts.”
As of this morning, there are 11 COVID-19 cases at one prison, SCI Phoenix in Montgomery County, but concern for cases spreading to other facilities is another reason for the expedited release of eligible inmates.
Under the temporary reprieve program, approximately 1,500 to 1,800 inmates would be eligible, although given the reentry challenges of ensuring connection to the health care and behavioral health system, housing and food security, the number will likely be less than the eligible pool.
Vulnerable inmates will include inmates aged 65 or older; anyone with an autoimmune disorder; pregnant inmates; anyone with a serious, chronic medical condition such as heart disease, diabetes, chronic respiratory disease, bone marrow or organ transplantation, severe obesity, kidney disease, liver disease,[and] cancer; or another medical condition that places them at higher risk for complications of coronavirus as defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The releases could begin as early as Tuesday, April 14.
Sec. Wetzel stressed that a thorough reentry component has been developed to ensure inmates will be successful.
“While we need to release inmates to protect them and to allow us space to mitigate the impact of the virus in our system, we also know that we need to prepare inmates for release,” Sec. Wetzel said. “Our reentry plans will include several days of release planning with the inmate, preparing and connecting the inmate to treatment programs in the community, release transportation and a complete medical screening to ensure that we are not releasing sick inmates. We’ll also provide them with an appropriate medication supply and connect them to medical providers in the community.”
While on temporary reprieve, individuals will be monitored similarly to parolees and will be supervised by parole agents. Upon expiration of the order, individuals would be returned to prison to complete any remaining portion of their sentences.
A copy of the governor’s order can be found as a PDF here or on Scribd.
Find the latest information, including a daily dashboard, on the DOC’s COVID-19 efforts here.
Find the latest information on the coronavirus here.
MEDIA CONTACTS: Lyndsay Kensinger, Governor’s Office, RA-GVGOVPRESS@pa.gov
Susan McNaughton, DOC, smcnaughto@pa.gov
Maria Finn, DOC, mfinn@pa.gov
PA Supreme Court: Failure to Provide Interpreter for Jury Selection Requires New Trial
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Diaz, upholding the Superior Court’s ruling that a defendant who needed but was not provided with a Spanish interpreter during the first day of jury selection should receive a new trial. The Court ruled that the failure to provide a defendant with an interpreter during a critical stage of trial results in a Sixth Amendment violation and automatically requires a new trial even if the defendant cannot prove prejudice (that the lack of an interpreter actually affected the proceedings).
Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein
The Facts of Diaz
In Diaz, the defendant was charged with rape of a child, endangering the welfare of a child, statutory sexual assault, indecent assault, corruption of minors, and conspiracy. Bucks County prosecutors alleged that the defendant sexually assaulted his girlfriend’s minor daughter multiple times when she was between the ages of ten and fourteen years old.
The defendant spoke some English, but he was not totally fluent. He retained private counsel for the preliminary hearing, and the Magisterial District Justice held the hearing in English without an interpreter. After the preliminary hearing, the defendant requested that his attorney obtain a Spanish interpreter for further proceedings because he felt that he had trouble understanding what happened at the preliminary hearing.
Prior to the argument on pre-trial motions, the defense attorney requested a Spanish interpreter for the defendant. There was no interpreter available that day, and the trial judge seems to have been upset that the defense attorney made the request at the last minute. After the judge asked why the request had not been made earlier, the defense attorney withdrew the request and informed the court that the defendant would only need an interpreter for his own testimony.
The trial court decided to move forward with the hearing on the pretrial motions and the first day of jury selection without the interpreter, but the judge agreed that an interpreter would be provided on the subsequent days of trial. Despite the defendant repeatedly saying that he did not really understand what was going on, the defense attorney agreed that that would work. The trial judge even mentioned that they should definitely get an interpreter for the second day of trial because “we got a PCRA looking at us in the face.” Nonetheless, the court proceeded with jury selection without an interpreter. In fact, the first day of trial, which took place without the interpreter, included pretrial motions, jury selection, opening statements, and direct and cross examination of the complainant. The defendant received an interpreter for the rest of the trial.
The jury found the defendant guilty of all charges. He was sentenced to 20-40 years’ incarceration and required to register as a sexually violent predator. The defendant appealed, new counsel was appointed, and the new attorney tried to raise the ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal. Because a criminal defendant generally cannot do that in Pennsylvania, the Superior Court dismissed the appeal.
The PCRA Petition
The defendant then filed a PCRA petition alleging the ineffective assistance of counsel, and the trial court appointed counsel for the PCRA. PCRA counsel amended the petition to raise numerous claims of ineffective assistance. This led to the reinstatement of the defendant’s appellate rights. The direct appeal was denied, and counsel then filed a second PCRA petition alleging that the defendant should receive a new trial because trial counsel provided the ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to properly request an interpreter for the whole trial.
The trial court held an evidentiary hearing in which it heard from various witnesses as to whether the defendant could understand and speak English. The court eventually concluded that the defendant did not speak English well enough to have his trial without an interpreter. Therefore, the trial court granted the PCRA petition and awarded a new trial for the defendant, finding that counsel was ineffective in failing to insist on an interpreter.
The Appeal
The Commonwealth appealed the granting of the PCRA Petition, and the Superior Court affirmed. The Commonwealth appealed again to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court accepted the appeal.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the trial court, finding that the defendant should have received an interpreter for the entire trial. In general, there are two standards for a PCRA Petition when dealing with the ineffective assistance of counsel. First, there is the general Strickland standard in which a defendant must show 1) a claim of arguable merit, 2) that counsel had no reasonably strategic basis for acting or failing to act, and 3) that the defendant actually suffered prejudice. This standard applies to most situations – for example, the failure to litigate a motion, the failure to object to certain evidence, and the failure to present witnesses or investigate potential defenses. This standard is more difficult to meet because a defendant not only has to show that the defense attorney should have done something differently, but also that it really could have made a difference in the proceedings.
Second,, there are some errors that are so fundamental to the right to a trial that they constitute structural errors and do not require a showing of prejudice. This standard applies in circumstances including: 1) the actual or constructive denial of counsel at a critical stage of trial; 2) when counsel fails entirely to provide meaningful adversarial testing of the prosecution’s case, and 3) circumstances wherein no lawyer, regardless of general competency, could have provided effective assistance of counsel. This also includes situations in which a defendant is prevented from conferring with counsel.
Here, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that the failure to provide an interpreter constituted a structural error in the proceedings because the defendant had no ability to communicate with his lawyer regarding the case during the trial. Therefore, defense counsel failed to provide the effective assistance of counsel by failing to object to the court proceeding through the first day of trial without an interpreter. The defendant will receive a new trial.
If you need a criminal defense lawyer in Philadelphia, PA, we can help.
Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers
If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, DUI, and Murder. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.
Philadelphia Courts Shut Down But Still Hearing Bail Motions and Detainer Motions During Coronavirus Pandemic
Are the Philadelphia Criminal Courts open for business?
Philadelphia Criminal Lawyer Zak Goldstein
Although some courts announced that they would be closing last week, the Philadelphia criminal courts remained open until Monday March 16, 2020. At that point, the courts announced that they would be shutting down all non-essential operations and delaying court dates for all types of criminal cases, including preliminary hearings, arraignments, bench trials, and jury trials.
Initially, the Court of Common Pleas announced that it planned to re-open on April 1, 2020. However, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court subsequently declared a statewide judicial emergency and ordered that courts remain closed until at least April 3, 2020. The Supreme Court, however, directed that courts remain at least partially open for essential functions such as bail hearings, detainer hearings, bench warrant hearings, preliminary arraignments, and potentially preliminary hearings for defendants who are incarcerated. At the moment, the Philadelphia courts have not been conducting preliminary hearings. It is still possible to file motions to reduce bail, lift detainers, and to lift bench warrants.
Are courts open in the rest of Pennsylvania during the Coronavirus pandemic?
No. Although the courts initially responded by letting each President Judge determine what should happen in each Pennsylvania district, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an order generally closing all courts with the exception of certain essential hearings as mentioned above. The counties are still sorting out how they will proceed with essential hearings during the shut down, but jury and bench trials are currently not occurring anywhere in Pennsylvania. New Jersey has also suspended most court operations.
Is it possible to get bail reduced due to the disease?
Yes, Philadelphia and the surrounding counties are still processing and ruling on bail motions, and it is possible that the lack of adequate health care in the prison system could be a reason why a prosecutor and/or judge may look more favorably on a bail motion than they normally would. Even with the general shut down of the courts, it is possible to file an emergency bail motion. In Philadelphia, it appears that the judges may rule on bail motions on the paperwork without holding actual hearings, but the District Attorney’s Office and the courts are hoping to reduce the prison population to the extent possible in the hopes of avoiding the spread of the Coronavirus. Therefore, if your loved one is being held on high bail for a case which has been postponed due to the shut down, contact us immediately to discuss the prospects of getting that bail reduced.
Can I get a probation detainer lifted while the courts are closed?
Yes, like bail motions, the Philadelphia courts continue to accept emergency motions to lift probation detainers. All probation detainer motions and bail motions are being heard by the President Judge or a designee for either the Court of Common Pleas or the Municipal Court. This means that it remains possible to file a motion to lift a probation detainer despite the general shut down caused by the virus. Further, if you or your loved one has been detained due to a technical violation or an arrest for a relatively less serious crime, the odds may be good for getting a probation detainer lifted.
What happens to criminal cases while the courts are closed?
Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers
That is a good question. At the moment, everything except emergency petitions for bail motions, detainer motions, and bench warrant hearings are currently on hold. Defendants who have been arrested on new charges are still entitled to a prompt preliminary arraignment at which bail will be set, and the Supreme Court has allowed the Municipal Court to proceed with preliminary hearings for incarcerated defendants. However, the Municipal Court has not yet been holding preliminary hearings in those cases as the judges are still working through what the procedures will be and evaluating how long the shut down is likely to be in effect. It is clear that trials will not happen for some time, and that fact may be helpful in getting a detainer lifted or bail reduced. The courts have also suspended the function of Rule 600, which is the speedy trial rule for trials.
The bottom line is that if you or your loved one have recently been arrested or are being held on high bail or a probation detainer, we may be able to help. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with a Philadelphia Criminal Defense attorney today. Our award-winning criminal lawyers stand ready to help you navigate this difficult time.
For more information:
Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorney Zak Goldstein Appears on Ask the Expert Radio Show
Philadelphia criminal defense attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire answers questions regarding Pennsylvania criminal procedure and what to do during a police encounter. The show will broadcast on Tuesday, March 3 at 10:30 am on Talk 860 AM.