Luzerne County Courts

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

From: Chester B. Muroski, President Judge on behalf of all members of the 11th Judicial District of Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County

MEDIA RELEASE: April 1, 2009
The Luzerne County Court en banc, following its weekly meeting, announces the following:

1. The Court expressed an interest in a proposal for a Mental Health Treatment Court as long as the appropriate grant application is submitted and funding obtained and guidelines are provided to the court as to the implementation of the Mental Health Court. The existing eligibility criteria for the Drug Treatment Court will remain unchanged. In addition to the current requirements, defendants with a documented diagnosis of a major mental illness, mental disability, or a dual diagnosis of mental illness in conjunction with drug and/or alcohol addiction, will be considered if they are charged with non-violent misdemeanor or felony (i.e. retail theft) offenses committed in Luzerne County. All cases will need to be accepted by the District Attorney’s Office, regardless of the charged offense. Before implementation of this specialty court, the court must approve all aspects of administration. A letter from the District Attorney was also submitted supporting the proposed Mental Health Court provided her office receives the necessary staffing. A memorandum from Kelly J. Cesari, Treatment Court Coordinator, states that she is confident that the two programs, the current Drug Treatment Court and the proposed Mental Health Court could be combined “without the addition of staff to the present Treatment Court program”. Michael A. Vecchio, Acting Director of Luzerne County Department of Probation Services, made it clear that the proponent of the plan, Dr. Anzalone, “assured him that his grant application would cover the costs, salary, and benefits of adding a probation officer to the program. It was understood that Probation Services could not continue to support this position if at any time the grant funding is eliminated.” The Court en banc directed that only furloughed employees, in order of seniority, be considered.

2. The court reviewed applications, submitted after advertising, from four interested lawyers for a vacant conflict counsel position. Members of the court reviewed all applications and decided that Enid Harris, Esquire should be appointed. Attorney Harris’ many years experience was noted and she is the only applicant certified to try capital murder cases.

3. A proposal was reviewed from Catholic Social Services to provide services incident the Comprehensive Highway Safety Program, a federally funded program through the Bureau of Highway Safety and PENNDOT to facilitate and fund all aspects of DUI checkpoints; and, the Community Service Program. It was noted that Catholic Social Services provided these services in the past. A number of recently furloughed probation services employees were hired to administer these services. Catholic Social Services will administer the program without cost to the court or county with reduced fees to participants. Judge Mundy disclosed he is a member of the Board of Catholic Social Services and abstained from discussion and voting on the proposal. The other members of the court agreed that the proposal should be adopted. It was noted that there would be no cost to the court since the offender pays the fees for the program and certain fees would actually be less than at present. Judge Peter Paul Olszewski, as Criminal Court Administrator for the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas, will oversee the orderly transfer, implementation and ongoing operation of these services.

The meeting was adjourned until the next meeting on April 14, 2009.

Clarification:

Approximately one week ago, the Court Administrator was tasked to retrieve the files concerning Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist claims from 2003 to present. The Prothonotary’s files prior to 2005 are paper files and not maintained in the courthouse proper, but rather, in off-site storage. This court inquiry involves retrieval of paper and electronically accessible files.
Yesterday, when reached at home to respond to an inquiry regarding a separate matter and the involvement of the AOPC in reviewing that matter, the President Judge was asked about the Luzerne County Court Administrator’s office requesting paper records relating to the Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist cases. He incorrectly assumed they were for the AOPC. In actuality, it was in response to the directive to gather this information so that the court would have the opportunity to review the subject records.
A rule change has recently been adopted by the Court to better assure random selection of neutral arbitrators. The inquiry into past cases is to ensure that the new rule addresses any perceived difficulties in the past practice.

Further, future media releases concerning meetings of the Court en banc will be issued the day following such meetings.