Here is the text we could read:
Issue 3, 2019
newsletter of the administrative office of pa courts
RoboLaw
Artificial intelligence is rapidly disrupting every industry in America
and every sector of society – and the courts are not exempt.
RoboLaw:
Coming soon to
your courtroom
By Gary E. Marchant
Regents Professor and Faculty Director, Center for Law, Science & Innovation,
Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, Arizona State University
Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly
disrupting every industry in America
and every sector of society – and the
legal system and the courts are not
exempt. Indeed, there are already
a number of court functions and
elements of legal practice that are
being transformed by AI, with much
more to come over the next decade.
Even though AI has been around since
the late 1950s, its recent emergence
and prevalence is the result of some
2
important leaps forward in how AI
operates. Until recently, AI was rule-
based, in that machines implemented
instructions coded by a human
programmer.
Today, most AI is data-based, in
which the machine is not instructed
what to do by any human, but rather
learns itself how to solve problems or
accomplish tasks by processing data
and experience. This new approach
known as machine learning is radically
expanding the utility and capabilities
of AI.
Machine-learning AI already permeates
our daily lives. Examples of this
include internet search engines, voice
capabilities on our smart phones and
home speakers, Google Maps, ride-
sharing apps like Uber and Lyft, online
shopping and music sites that predict
our preferences, etc.
But machine-learning AI also has
application to the courts.
Recently, U.S. Supreme Court Chief
Justice John Roberts was asked
“Can you foresee a day when smart
machines, driven with artificial
intelligences, will assist with courtroom
fact-finding or, more controversially
even, judicial decision-making?”
The Chief Justice replied: “It’s a day
that’s here and it’s putting a significant
strain on how the judiciary goes about
doing things.”
There are three primary domains in
which AI interacts with the judiciary
and court system: AI in legal
practice and court operations, AI as
evidence and legal claims against AI
applications.
AI in Legal Practice and Court
Operations
problem that the United States and
other jurisdictions face.
Although still in its early days AI is
already being implemented in legal
practice and judicial operations.
Technology-assisted review (TAR) for
electronic discovery was one of the
first legal applications, and is now
quite advanced and common. Courts
are often asked to weigh in on the
appropriateness and conduct of TAR in
specific cases.
Other AI-enabled tools are also being
used for legal research, either from
stand-alone vendors, or established
legal research databases like Westlaw
and Lexis.
An even more fundamental change
is the use of AI to help make judicial
decisions, not just advocate for and
inform such decisions. A handful of
judges have started using AI systems
such as IBM’s Watson to sift through
the large records in many cases and
recommend decisions on specific
issues or even the entire case.
The cohort of judges using AI on the
bench is expected to grow rapidly.
AI as Evidence
The second major category of AI
application for the courts is the use
by governments for various functions.
AI algorithms will increasingly
be used as evidence in toxic tort
causation inquiries, antitrust analyses,
discrimination cases and many other
types of cases.
Legal Claims Against AI
Applications
The last category of AI interactions
applicable to the courts is when
legal claims are made against AI
applications. These can be safety
claims in tort or product liability, which
we are already starting to see with
autonomous vehicles and AI medical
devices. There may also be legal
claims of bias or discrimination against
AI applications.
Recently U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts was asked “Can you
foresee a day when smart machines, driven with artificial intelligences, will assist
with courtroom fact-finding or, more controversially even, judicial decision-making?”
The Chief Justice replied: “It’s a day that’s here and it’s putting a significant strain
on how the judiciary goes about doing things.”
These AI research programs were
initially used by private law firms, but
now are being marketed to and used
by judicial staff as well.
Perhaps most provocatively, several
vendors now market AI brief-writing
systems that are targeted to specific
judges, which integrate data on
previous decisions, favorable and
unfavorable arguments, and other
available data about specific judges, to
customize and target a brief to make it
most appealing to an individual judge.
Online dispute resolution (ODR)
systems are a subject of active
investigation by both private
companies and courts in the United
States and elsewhere. These systems
will employ AI to provide quick and
inexpensive preliminary decisions,
especially in simpler cases, without any
initial involvement by human lawyers or
judges. Such ODR systems could help
address the major access to justice
of AI algorithms as evidence. The
first major use has been algorithms
to assist judges in sentencing,
recidivism risk assessment and pre-trial
detentions.
The use of such AI algorithms raise
issues about whether they should
be used, how and when they should
be used, and who gets access to the
underlying algorithm code and data,
which often are proprietary.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court recently
decided such issues in its Loomis
v
Wisconsin decision holding that
.
algorithms can be used in sentencing
but cannot be the exclusive factor,
and that criminal defendants are not
entitled under due process to obtain
access to the underlying algorithm and
data.
Other state courts have held that it
may be a due process violation not to
disclose the underlying algorithm used
Other AI uses may raise privacy
legal claims. Intellectual property will
become a big issue for the courts
– for example, how does copyright
and patent law apply to inventions or
creations in which AI was all or part of
the design function?
In all of these types of cases, as
in the other domains of AI and the
courts described above, judges and
court staff will soon start seeing
more and more applications of AI
in the process and substance of
their work, and will need to become
sophisticated consumers of this soon-
to-be ubiquitous technology in order
to promote and protect the justice
function of our court systems.
(Gary Marchant is a past speaker at
the Pennsylvania State Trial Judges
Conference where he spoke about how
AI is being used in the legal industry.)
3
Staying secure - cybersecurity defenses
With access to sensitive data on
individuals and organizations,
government entities are
increasingly becoming a desirable
target for cybercriminals.
While the AOPC has many lines
of technological defense in
place to protect us from possible
cyberattacks, unfortunately there
is no way to guarantee complete
prevention of a successful breach.
“These cyberattacks can come
in many forms, but the most
challenging to defend against
originate through phishing emails,
and our end users serve as one of
the most important security layers,”
said Betty Torrey, AOPC/IT user
security specialist.
Phishing attacks use social
engineering to try to gain
confidential information, including
usernames, passwords and network
credentials, or to trick the user into
installing a malicious computer
program. By posing as a known
and trusted source, cybercriminals
attempt to manipulate the user into
entering personal information into
a phony website or installing a fake
version of a legitimate application.
All court personnel should be
highly suspicious of all links and
attachments included in emails,
even if the sender is well known.
If there is any doubt as to their
authenticity, it is best to have the
email checked before opening
anything.
Employees should contact AOPC/
IT Security (ITSecurity@pacourts.us)
with any cybersecurity questions, or
to have an email checked.
Cybersecurity tips:
1. Use passphrases to
increase password length
and strength while still
making them memorable
2. Remove any unnecessary
software on your computer
3. Avoid entering personal
information when using
public Wi-Fi
New video
provides civics
refresher on
the courts
Facilitating access to justice is the highest priority of
Pennsylvania’s courts. But if people don't understand
government, they might not appreciate the role the courts
play in protecting their rights and freedoms. If people are
unaware of the role of the courts, they may see no harm in
political attacks on judges and attempts to weaken or strip
courts of their powers.
The AOPC recently released a new “Learn about the Courts”
education video that describes in basic terms the role of the
courts in a democracy, how the Pennsylvania court system is
structured and how various types of cases advance through
the system.
Developed and produced by AOPC/Communications, the
video debuted at a Judicial Independence Commission
event entitled “Inside the Pennsylvania Courts: A live-stream
Panel Discussion” in September.
The 3-minute video is a modern concept aimed at a broad
audience, including high-school students. The new video
replaces a longer-form video used for the past 15 years.
Hopefully the video will catch attention both on social media
as well as in classrooms and courthouses.
With more than 200,000 people summoned to jury
duty each year in Pennsylvania, the video can serve as
an educational resource. Members of the judiciary are
encouraged to use the video when making presentations
at schools, community meetings or giving speeches to
fraternal organizations or other groups.
Watch the new video at www.pacourts.us.
4
Pennsylvania’s
court technology
receives national
recognition
A reaffirmation of Pennsylvania’s leadership status in court
technology, the National Association for Court Management
(NACM) and Court Information Technology Officers
Consortium (CITOC) selected Pennsylvania as a two-time
winner of their 2019 Technology Awards.
Two AOPC/IT projects garnered the national recognition –
the recently implemented Guardianship Tracking System
(GTS) and the PDF/A electronic document archival solution.
“For more than 30 years, Pennsylvania has been a
technology leader among other state court systems. While
this is not the first time our talented staff has been honored
by peers nationally, it is the first time two such honors have
occurred in the same year,” said Court Administrator of
Pennsylvania, Tom Darr.
Coming on the heels of implementation of Pennsylvania’s
landmark Clean Slate program, which depends on
Pennsylvania’s Judicial Computer System for data, this
is a year of significant technological achievement for
Pennsylvania’s Judiciary.”
Guardianship Tracking System
The GTS won the Court Process Innovations Award in the
Court Management category for its “optimization of the
way people, processes and technology work together to
transform courts.”
GTS provides a tool for court offices to better manage
guardianship cases, and it allows for the e-filing of required
annual reports and inventories by guardians.
The system includes functionalities such as electronic
notifications to guardians for upcoming and overdue reports,
compliance tracking, the insertion of flags for potential areas
of loss and neglect, statewide alerts placed on guardians
and the delivery of detailed statistics for reporting and policy
making.
PDF/A electronic document archival solution
Simultaneously, the AOPC’s PDF/A electronic document
archival solution received the Emerging Technologies Award
in the Court Technology category.
This project developed a way for courts to permanently store
court documents electronically, and was recognized for its
L to R: AOPC/IT Director Amy Ceraso, Esq., and NACM
President Paul DeLosh from VA.
L to R: AOPC/IT Assistant Director Russel Montchal, and
Enterprise IT Applications Architect Judy Tosten
utilization of cutting-edge technologies that solve the
increasing retention problems county courts are facing in
attempts to store all their paper records.
This new innovative format ensures the long-term
preservation, as well as the accurate display of all electronic
documents – even in the distant future after computer
standards and formats have evolved.
The Pennsylvania courts were recognized at both the 2019
NACM Annual Conference on July 25 in Las Vegas, Nevada,
and at the 2019 Annual CITOC meeting in New Orleans,
Louisiana, on Sept. 9.
5
Security:
past, present
and future
By Rob Granzow
judicial district security administrator
Kyle Ramberger
assistant director of judicial district security
Security is both a personal and a collective responsibility.
While AOPC/Judicial District Security strives to provide the
technical expertise and resources necessary to drive an
environment of safety and security in the Pennsylvania court
system, they also heavily rely on the vigilant participation of
all those working and having business in the courts.
In response to several security incidents which occurred in
the magisterial district courts, a Magisterial District Court
Security Task Force was formed in 2018.
This Task Force, chaired by Magisterial District Judge John
Fishel, has a diverse complement of stakeholders and
is charged with the responsibility of providing front-line
observations and recommendations for potential procedural
and technological security enhancements within the
magisterial district courts.
Further championing the importance of judicial district
security, Justin Mammen, Emergency Services and Security
Manager for the Superior Court of California, Orange
County, delivered a compelling presentation to attendees at
the June 2019 PJ/PACM Conference in State College.
Mammen’s presentation focused on current trends in court
security including the expanded use of cameras, panic/
duress alarms systems, weapon-screening and mass
notification systems.
He reinforced the fact that while technological
enhancements are generally beneficial, they remain
dependent upon the human element to maximize their
effectiveness, as no technology unto itself will stop an
incident from occurring.
Local court security committees
The importance and value of Pennsylvania’s local court
security committees, comprised of president judges,
county executives, sheriffs, district court administrators and
magisterial district judges, convening regularly to review
security matters in their districts cannot be underestimated.
Local court security committees are also responsible for
developing policies and procedures that are clear, concise,
cohesive and comprehensive.
6
These policies and procedures bring optimal value when
they are applied consistently throughout the various
magisterial and common pleas courts and modified as
necessary when a vulnerability in a local policy or procedure
is identified.
Utilizing PAJIRS
All of Pennsylvania’s courts have the capacity to accurately
document security incidents and events through the
Pennsylvania Judicial Incident Reporting System (PAJIRS).
It is important to remember that a security incident in
Pennsylvania is defined as “an event that has the potential
to cause, or has in fact caused personal injury or property
loss.”
Reporting a security threat or incident via PAJIRS is vital for
the safety of judges, court employees and the public who
utilize the court system. It not only allows for the accurate
documentation of the incident, but for a timely review by
AOPC/Judicial District Security staff where security guidance
and direction is routinely provided.
Effective training
While there is not a single piece of equipment, nor policy
or procedure that can prevent all emergent situations from
ever occurring, effective training of personnel can and will
enhance the safety and security of our courts.
While judicial districy security staff welcomes suggestions
for future training and education programs, topics currently
under development include, Situational Awareness
and Violence Avoidance, Emergency Preparedness for
Courthouse Emergencies, Hostile Intruder and Active
Shooter Response for Judicial Environments and Managing
Aggressive Persons (MAP).
With 2020 on the horizon, AOPC/Judicial District Security is
well-energized to continue its mission of providing technical
expertise and resources necessary to drive an environment
of safety and security within the Pennsylvania Court system.
However, for this vision to be fully realized, it will require
everyone’s active participation.
L to R: Commonwealth Court’s Gretchen Hanrahan, chief legal counsel and Michael Krimmel, prothonotary
Leadership changes to
Commonwealth Court
Commonwealth Court
recently announced a series
of leadership changes that
took effect on July 22.
most recently as a staff
attorney in the Office of the
Prothonotary – which is now
the Office of Legal Counsel.
The Court’s newly-appointed
Chief Legal Counsel
Gretchen Hanrahan, Esq.,
has assumed the duties of
former Prothonotary Kristen
Brown, Esq. following her
recent retirement after 37
years with the Court.
Hanrahan has worked
for the Court for 23 years
in various capacities,
“I am grateful to the
President Judge and the
Board of Judges for their
confidence,” said Hanrahan.
I have been with the Court
for most of my professional
career, and I look forward to
working with the judges and
our talented court staff in
this new role.”
Meanwhile, Commonwealth
Court’s former Chief
Clerk, Michael Krimmel,
Esq. has assumed the
title of prothonotary, and
is now responsible for
managing the Office of the
Prothonotary—formerly
known as the Office of the
Chief Clerk.
Krimmel served as staff
counsel to the Minor Court
Rules Committee before
being appointed chief clerk
of the Commonwealth
Court in 2006. Prior to that,
he worked in county court
administration for 14 years.
“This is a change in titles,
not a change in functions,”
explained President Judge
Mary Hannah Leavitt.
These new titles will better
reflect the functions, duties,
and responsibilities of each
position and each office
within the Court.”
Call for Entries
AOPConnected is always looking for stories. Do you know of a court-
related community project or award? Contact the AOPC Communications
Office with the scoop! Email: CommunicationsOffice@pacourts.us
Miss an issue?
Check out our newsletter archive online at http://www.pacourts.us/judicial-administration/
office-of-communications-and-intergovernmental-relations/aopconnected
7
Editors
Stacey Witalec
Kim Bathgate
Writer
Casey Scheffler
Contributors
Patti Campbell
Rhonda Hocker
Stephen Baldwin
Graphic Design
Gretchen Smith
Photography
Justin Scott
Court Administrator of PA
Tom Darr
Assistant Court Administrator of PA
Andrea B. Tuominen, Esq.
All content is collected, written
and edited by the AOPC
Communications Office
unless noted.
You may reach the office
by calling: (717) 231-3300
or by emailing:
CommunicationsOffice@pacourts.us
For more information about
Pennsylvania’s courts, visit:
www.pacourts.us
Twitter @PACourts
Facebook @pennsylvaniacourts
YouTube @PA Courts
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Thomas G. Saylor
Chief Justice of Pennsylvania
Max Baer
Justice
Debra Todd
Justice
Christine Donohue
Justice
Kevin M. Dougherty
Justice
David N. Wecht
Justice
Sallie Updyke Mundy
Justice
Attorney by day,
author by night
Supreme Court Chief Law Clerk John Witherow recently published a military
fiction novel – “THE GAP: Fort Indiantown.”
The story follows a young helicopter pilot, Mark Ashford, through the
many challenges he faces at the Army National Guard flight facility at Fort
Indiantown, Pennsylvania. Upon his arrival for his first duty assignment,
Mark suffers a cold welcome, finding little empathy from the older and more
experienced pilots under his command.
On a drug interdiction assignment, Mark befriends a boy who is being
manipulated by drug dealers. As he tries to help the boy, Mark must also
confront a subordinate’s secret traumatic past and make irreversible
decisions putting his lifelong dream of flying at risk.
“The Gap is a coming-of-age story that poses questions about the wisdom
of the current drug war while employing themes from another lost war,” said
Witherow.
He wrote this novel as a tribute to the veteran pilots at Fort Indiantown Gap.
His first-hand experience as a former helicopter pilot in the Pennsylvania
National Guard, coupled with his sensitivity to the challenges facing the
American criminal justice system, offers an incredibly unique perspective.
All are welcome to join him in celebrating the book’s launch at his book-
signing on Thurs., Oct. 24 at 7 p.m. at the Midtown Scholar Bookstore in
Harrisburg.
8
8
Raising butterflies and
awareness is an AOPC
employee’s passion
“My love and fascination for butterflies started before I can
even remember,” AOPC/IT’s Marisol Barrios explained.
When she was five years old, Marisol loved butterflies so
much that her parents opened a clothing store and named it
“The Butterfly Boutique.” Her love for the creatures has only
continued to grow.
When asked how she got into raising butterflies, Marisol said
that it started with just one butterfly she found nearly 20
years ago.
“I knew from doing some research in the early 2000’s that
monarchs love a plant called milkweed – but I wasn’t sure
what milkweed looked like. A co-worker of mine who was a
master gardener took me to a patch of milkweed behind our
office building where I actually found my first caterpillar.”
Marisol explained that she now continues to raise Monarchs
because of their endangered status.
“It’s actually quite easy to raise them,” Marisol said. “I’ll
collect the eggs and raise 20 to 30 at a time in my kitchen
with rubber bands, coffee filters and plastic cups.”
Marisol researches and visits locations near her in
Pennsylvania that are dense with milkweed, the Monarchs’
host plant, where she finds and collects eggs.
“Monarchs actually have a very unique life cycle,” Marisol
said. “They stay in Mexico all winter and then start flying
north to Canada around March, so their migration season in
Pennsylvania doesn’t begin until late June or July.”
She can raise around 100 butterflies every season with a 90
percent success rate. In comparison, only about 10 percent
of Monarchs in the wild survive on their own.
“The biggest threats to Monarchs are pesticides in the U.S.
and illegal logging in Mexico, and I want people to be aware
of the devastating effects that our systemic agricultural
practices are having – they are putting all of our insects at
risk,” she said.
I was initially drawn to them because of their beauty, but
it’s become more about helping them once I found out how
much trouble they’re in.”
“You don’t have to raise them like I do, but there are a lot of
little things that people can do to help Monarchs – use fewer
pesticides, buy more organic, tag Monarchs and report
sightings on the Journey North app to help with research,”
Marisol elaborated.
The good news is that Monarchs are set to make a
comeback this year thanks to the efforts of dedicated
people like Marisol who use their passion to make a
difference!
9
Marisol Barrios, AOPC/IT technical writer
9
Berks County implements new
notification system
This summer, Berks County became
the second county in the state to
implement a new electronic notification
system that sends automatic text and/
or email messages to defendants
reminding them about upcoming
criminal court dates.
The alerts are sent out three days
before preliminary hearings at
magisterial district courts, and two
days prior to all Common Pleas Court
appearances.
Participation in this program is
mandatory and defendants are
required to provide their mobile phone
number and email on an intake form
located on the county’s website.
“We hope this program increases
efficiency, decreases warrants for
defendants who may have simply
forgotten, and decreases costs for both
defendants and for the county,” said
President Judge Thomas G. Parisi.
The program is administered by the
County Commissioners Association of
Pennsylvania (CCAP) and launched on
July 1.
The county will evaluate its results after
about six months, when they hope to
see a significant decline in the number
of defendants who do not appear in
court.
more INFORMATION
CCAP’s Unified Case Management (UCM)
Program Manager Heather Hiester at
hhiester@pacounties.org
How the PA relay service works
Tips for successful
relay calls:
• Don’t hang up.
• Say “Go Ahead” or “GA” each
time you have finished speaking.
• Speak directly to the person
calling, not to the CA.
• Ask questions one at a time.
• Be patient and speak slowly.
• Know that the CA will type
everything he or she hears.
You're manning the front desk.
A call comes in. You answer, but
there's a long delay between
what you say and any response
from the caller. You hear
something about a relay service.
What's happening?
Chances are you're taking a
call from a person using the
Pennsylvania Relay Service – a
service that makes telephone
conversations possible for those
who are deaf or hard of hearing.
to a particular phone number
and person using a special
device called a TTY.
When you answer a relay
call, the CA will say “Hello, a
person is calling you through
Pennsylvania Relay. This is
CA number XXXX. Have you
received a relay call before?”
If you are not familiar with
relay, say “NO” and the CA will
explain how it works in more
detail.
Here’s how it works – the deaf
or hard of hearing person dials
711 and asks a Communications
Assistant (CA) to connect them
10
moreINFORMATION
Go to www.parelay.net.
11
Legislative roundup by Damian J. Wachter, Esq.
The House and Senate are recessed for the summer and return on Sept. 17 and 23,
respectively. Prior to recess, a flurry of legislative activity took place.
2019-20 General Appropriations Act:
This year’s general fund budget level-funded the judiciary’s
government operations at $355.789 million. An increase of
$286,000 was included for the Judicial Conduct Board.
Changes to the composition of the Commission on
Sentencing:
Pursuant to changes made in the Administrative Code
and becoming effective Oct. 1, the chief justice will now
appoint two judges of courts of record and a law professor
knowledgeable in criminal sentencing.
The president judges of the Superior and Commonwealth
Courts will now each appoint one judge of a court of record.
The amendment removes all executive appointments and
eliminates the victim advocate as an ex officio nonvoting
member.
Finally, the amendment increases the number of legislative
appointments to the Commission.
Victim/witness legislation:
Marsy’s Law – a victim rights constitutional amendment
– passed for the required second time, and a question
seeking voter approval will appear on the November
ballot. The amendment passed in tandem with statutory
amendments to protect victims/witnesses, and became
effective on Aug. 27:
• Act 23 – adds a new right in the Crime Victims Act
prohibiting the exclusion of victims from any criminal
proceedings, absent court finding that the victim’s
testimony would be materially altered if he/she heard
other testimony at the proceeding;
• Act 24 – amends the Rape Shield Law to exclude
in certain circumstances evidence of past sexual
victimization or allegations thereof;
• Act 30 – grants protections similar to those afforded to
children under the tender years exception to individuals
with intellectual disabilities and autism.
School police officers:
Previously under the Public School Code, school entities
could apply to Courts of Common Pleas for the appointment
of school police officers. Upon appointment, judges could
grant the school police officers the power to arrest, issue
citations for summary offenses and/or detain students until
the arrival of local law enforcement.
Act 67 removes school police officer arrest power.
Additionally, the act requires judges, at the request of a
school entity, to grant school police officers the authority to
carry firearms if the officer:
•
has successfully completed basic training as required
by the Municipal Police Officers’ Education and
Training Commission, OR is a graduate of the PA State
Police Academy, was employed as a trooper and has
separated from service in good standing, AND
has successfully completed the Basic School Resource
Officer Course of Instruction or an equivalent course of
instruction approved by the Pennsylvania Comission on
Crime and Delinquency.
•
Act 67 became effective Aug. 27, and contains numerous
other amendments pertaining to school resource officers
and security guards – the changes discussed above are
only those involving Courts of Common Pleas.
Coming up:
The House and Senate are scheduled for 24 and 15
voting days, respectively, this fall. Among other issues, it is
expected the legislature will:
1. Continue to debate reforms to statutory probation
provisions, building upon a two-day Senate hearing
held in June in which a panel of Common Pleas judges
participated; and
2. Continue debate on a second justice
reinvestment initiative.
{Damian Wachter, Esq. is the assistant
director of Legislative Affairs.}
12
Commonwealth Court
hosts mock trial
By Amy Kehner
AOPC/Judicial Programs administrator
On May 23, with two weeks of middle school remaining
before summer break, a group of 135 soon-to-be high
school freshmen from Cumberland Valley’s Good Hope
Middle School visited the Pennsylvania Judicial Center.
As the final project in their U.S. History class, students
conducted a mock trial to decide how much responsibility
Germany should be assessed for World War I.
Commonwealth Court Judge Ellen Ceisler and state Rep.
Greg Rothman, 87th Legislative District, Cumberland County,
welcomed students to the James S. Bowman En Banc
Courtroom.
Judge Ceisler reminded students how the three different
branches of government function and summarized the
significance of an independent judiciary. She impressed
upon the class the importance of the American jury system
and the civic duty to serve as a juror.
While Judge Ceisler presided over the courtroom, the
students were solely responsible for assuming all roles
involved - including judges, jurors, prosecuting lawyers,
defense counsel, witnesses, bailiffs and sketch artists. The
proceedings were even recorded by the Court’s own court
reporter.
Judge Ceisler asked questions to engage the students and
explained why certain court procedures are critical to the
fair and impartial administration of justice.
Now in its fifth year, this program offers students a hands-
on experience that helps enhance their listening skills,
gain confidence in public speaking, and practice the art of
advocacy, all while learning about possible careers.
13
Around the Judiciary
Justice Debra Todd spoke on June 6
at the Sr. Law Center event on elder
justice.
On June 18, Supreme Court Justice David Wecht participated in the Philadelphia
Bar Association’s Chancellor’s Forum on “When the Rule of Law Fails: Lessons of
the Holocaust.”
(l to r) sitting: Don Greenbaum- Liberator of Dachau, Ernest Gross- Holocaust
Survivor, Justice David Wecht (l to r) standing: Rochelle Fedullo, Esq. – Chancellor,
Philadelphia Bar Association, Felix Yellin – Vice Chancellor, Louis D. Brandeis Law
Society, Jennifer Coatsworth – Chancellor, Louis D. Brandeis Law Society.
The Veterans Treatment Court
Strategic Planning Committee met in
Harrisburg in late June to develop a
statewide strategic plan for Veterans
Treatment Courts. The session was
facilitated by the Center for Court
Innovation and was hosted by the
AOPC.
Team Scott Inspire is a project
of the Foundation for Enhancing
Communities. Their “Students
Achieving Success” (SAS) program
provides support and encouragement
to students in Dauphin County facing
adversity, homelessness or other
challenges. Superior Court Judge
Carolyn Nichols was a keynote
speaker at their graduation celebration
in May.
(l to r): President Judge Michael
Barrasse (Lackawanna), Judge
Charles Ehrlich (Philadelphia), Judge
Wage Kagarise (Blair) and President
Judge Janine Edwards (Wayne)
participated in a hearing on probation
reform legislation before the Senate
Judiciary Committee on June 25.
Superior Court Judges Anne Lazarus
and Carolyn Nichols and Supreme
Court Justice Debra Todd (l to r)
participated in a June panel discussion
in Harrisburg for Chatham University’s
Pennsylvania Center for Women in
Politics.
Franklin County Court of Common
Pleas celebrated Juror Appreciation
Day with festivities sponsored by the
Franklin County Bar Association.
14
On June 28, one year after Clean
Slate legislation was signed into law,
Court Administrator of Pennsylvania,
Tom Darr spoke at a press
conference in front of the PJC about
the courts’ role with clean slate.
AOPC wished Ken Crump, assistant
director of Finance, a very happy
retirement in early July. Ken worked
for AOPC for more than 27 years. With
absolute dedication and good humor,
he was instrumental for many years
in crafting the judiciary’s annual state
budget.
The PCSTJ officers (l to r): Treasurer - President Judge Dennis Reinaker
(Lancaster); first vice president - Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio
(Montgomery); president elect - Judge George W. Overton (Philadelphia);
President Judge Terrence R. Nealon (Lackawanna); second vice president
- Judge Christine A. Ward, administrative judge – Civil Division (Allegheny);
immediate past president - President Judge Charles H. Saylor (Northumberland);
past president - Judge George A. Pagano (Delaware).
Not pictured: secretary - Judge Marc F. Lovecchio (Lycoming).
Kristen W. Brown, Esq., who
recently retired as the prothonotary
of Commonwealth Court, received
the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s
Administrative Law Section’s James
S. Bowman Award for making a
significant impact on the practice of
administrative law and demonstrating
leadership in mentoring
administrative law practitioners.
Pictured with Court Administrator of
Pennsylvania Tom Darr is Dr. Hannah
Bows, an assistant professor in Criminal
Law at Durham Law School in the
United Kingdom, deputy director of the
Centre for Research into Violence and
Abuse, and co-director of the Centre
for Criminal Law and Criminal Justice.
Outside of academia, Prof. Bows sits
as a magistrate on the County Durham
and Darlington bench. Prof. Bows, who
researches violence and abuse against
elders, visited Pennsylvania (and other
states) to understand how the U.S.
responds to abuse and crimes against
elders.
Assistant Court Administrator of
Pennsylvania Andrea Tuominen, Esq.,
after successfully completing a
two-year term as the co-chair of
the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s
Women in the Profession Committee.
(l to r): Andrea Tuominen and co-chair
Renee Mattei Myers.
Court Interpreters Workshop attendees
participated in exercises and listened
to speakers providing valuable
information at the July workshop in
Harrisburg.
Superior Court hosted Chinese law
students from Temple University’s LLM
in Trial Advocacy program, in addition
to interns and law students from local
courts and the Montgomery County
Bar Association’s Diversity Committee.
(l to r:) PJE Susan Gantman, PJE John
Bender, Senior Judge James Colins
and Judge Carolyn Nichols along with
the students and interns.
Allegheny County’s former Chief
Public Defender and newly appointed
Common Pleas Judge Elliot Howsie
during his swearing-in ceremony in
June.
PJ/PACM Board members at the June
conference held in State College.
(l to r): Mark Singer – vice president/
Franklin district court administrator
(DCA); Amy DeMatt – western
director/Westmoreland DCA;
Deborah Rivera – immediate past
president/ Monroe deputy court
administrator; Kevin Cross – president-
elect/Philadelphia deputy court
administrator; Lisa Hazen – treasurer/
Lawrence assistant court administrator;
Carol Dillon – president/Montgomery
deputy court administrator; Kendra
Miknis – central director/Centre DCA;
Charles Mapp, Sr. – eastern director/
Philadelphia chief deputy court
administrator; Don Powers – central
director/Clinton DCA; Heidi Shiderly,
Esq. – western director/Crawford DCA;
Kerry Turtzo – eastern director/Lehigh
DCA.
15
Transitions
NEW TO THE JUDICIAL BRANCH
JOSHUA R. ALBRIGHT – IT – END USER
HARDWARE/SOTWARE TECH
NICOLE A. VALKO ARRINGTON – CAMBRIA
– ASST COURT ADMIN
ERICA J. CIHONSKI – BUTLER – DEPUTY
COURT ADMIN
BELINDA A. EIGEN – OCFC – JUDICIAL
PROGRAMS ANALYST
ROBERT F. GRANZOW – JUDICIAL
DISTRICT SECURITY – ADMINISTRATOR
DANIEL S. HALL – IT – END USER
HARDWARE/SOFTWARE TECH
ELLIOT C. HOWSIE – ALLEGHENY –
JUDGE
ANNA-KRISTIE M. MARKS – LEHIGH –
JUDGE
MARY C. MCGINLEY – ALLEGHENY –
JUDGE
JACALYN S. MORAN – CAMBRIA – ASST
COURT ADMIN
CAROLYN M. MURPHY-PERRY – LEHIGH –
MDJ ADMIN
AMANDA D. PEREIRA – RESEARCH AND
STATS – RESEARCH ASSISTANT
MARSHALL J. PICCININI – ERIE – JUDGE
JORDAN S. RUDACILLE – IT – NOC
TECHNICIAN
CASEY M. SCHEFFLER –
COMMUNICATIONS – COMMUNICATIONS
COORDINATOR
CHRISTOPHER W. SPOHN – IT – END
USER HARDWARE/SOTWARE TECH
BRANDI C. TOY – ARMSTRONG –
DISTRICT COURT ADMIN
GEOFFREY E. WEYL – LEGAL – COUNSEL
BRANDON L. WHITESEL – IT – SENIOR
WEB DEVELOPER
RETIREMENTS/RESIGNATIONS
SARAH L. BALSINGER – CAMBRIA – ASST
COURT ADMIN
STACEY J. BASSETT – CAMBRIA – ASST
COURT ADMIN
SHERRY A. BROWN – IT – NOC MANAGER
RONIT R. CHAUDHURI – IT – IT
SPECIALIST
KERI L. COHEN – LEGAL – LEGAL INTERN
AMANDA COOPERMAN – PHILADELPHIA
– JUDGE
KENNETH R. CRUMP – FINANCE –
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
LYNN M. CUMMINGS-WILSON – VENANGO
– DISTRICT COURT ADMIN
ROSE MARY FIGAZZOTTO – RESEARCH
AND STATS – RESEARCH ASSISTANT
JANINE M. HAUGHTON – LEGAL – LEGAL
INTERN
TOM M. HOLMAN – BUTLER – DEPUTY
DISTRICT COURT ADMIN
MARY BETH MARSCHIK – JUDICIAL
DISTRICT SECURITY – ADMINISTRATOR/
SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO COURT ADMIN
KENDRA L. RILEY – FINANCE – ADMIN
ASSISTANT
H. GORDON ROBERTS – LEHIGH – MDJ
ADMIN
ROSALYN K. ROBINSON – PHILADELPHIA
– JUDGE
M. TERESA SARMINA – PHILADELPHIA –
JUDGE
J. KAY SHAFFER – IT – IT ASSET
COORDINATOR
COMMITTEES, BOARDS AND ADVISORY
GROUPS
HON. RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER –
APPOINTED – JUDICIAL CONDUCT
BOARD
BARRY M. SIMPSON, ESQ. –
REAPPOINTED – IOLTA
MARKITA MORRIS-LOUIS, ESQ. –
REAPPOINTED – IOLTA
T. MATTHEW DUGAN, III, ESQ. –
APPOINTED – CRIMINAL PROCEDURAL
RULES COMMITTEE
HON. MARGARET A. HUNSICKER-
FLEISCHER – REAPPOINTED – MINOR
COURT RULES COMMITTEE
JAMES L. MCMONAGLE, JR., ESQ. –
REAPPOINTED – APPELLATE COURT
PROCEDURAL RULES COMMITTEE
HON. DENISE SNYDER THIEL –
REAPPOINTED – MINOR JUDICIARY
EDUCATION BOARD
HON. KAREN EISNER ZUCKER –
REAPPOINTED – MINOR JUDICIARY
EDUCATION BOARD
601 Commonwealth Avenue
Harrisburg, PA 17120
