It was interesting to me that Councilman Ortiz talked about the power of the Commonwealth and mentioned how poor people have to go with the public defender's office who are overburdened and overwhelmed with the number of cases that they have. The fact is that the same situation exists in the district attorney's office. My DAs have nothing but serious cases in the major trials unit, and they'll go into court with 3, 4, 5, 6 cases on a particular day, a single DA. Our DAs in the municipal court unit have just hundreds of cases every week. And yet it seems as though we don't get any more DAs in our office year after year after year after year because of budgetary 84 COMM. ON LAW & GOV'T - RES. NO. 980660 problems. So I sympathize and I don't necessarily disagree with what Councilman Ortiz says about the defender's office and what happens to poor people sometimes. He has a legitimate point when it comes to that. But what you have to realize is that when everybody comes and talks about the power of the DA's office and our enormous resources, I have my DAs sometimes going out and paying for legal pads 'cause they don't have enough. So that, frankly, is slightly overblown when it comes to our office.
And if you'll just remain here, we'll call you right back after Judge Bonavitacola testifies. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell for the purpose of welcoming some guests here.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 85 COMM. ON LAW & GOV'T - RES. NO. 980660 Certainly, we want to welcome some students with their teacher and one of their parents, John Ross, who are here today. These students are from Sayre Middle School, at 58th and Walnut Streets. And we are certainly very, very glad to have them here and to hear about such an important issue. We're talking about the role of prisoners and how their rights are impacted by two questions on the ballot. And so it's very, very important that you realize how government discusses important questions. But we want to welcome you to this City Council hearing on law and government chaired by Councilman David Cohen, and we hope you can come back again and stay a while. Thank you so much.
The Chair would like to request Judge Bonavitacola to come forward. (Judge Alex Bonavitacola comes forward.) 86 COMM. ON LAW & GOV'T - RES. NO. 980660
Thank you. Please be good enough to identify yourself for the record, and please hold the microphone very close to yourself. JUDGE BONAVITACOLA: Alex Bonavitacola, President Judge, Court of Common Pleas, First Judicial District. Councilman, I'm here today to answer any questions that you or your colleagues may have. I have a few comments that I would like to offer to you by way of the impact that I see that this constitutional amendment would have on the citizens and the counsel and the court of Philadelphia.
Please go ahead, sir. JUDGE BONAVITACOLA: First of all, we have to be prepared to increase budgets. And I know that's a problem. And the increase in budget, most assuredly, will come from the district attorney's office, from the Defender Association, and from the court in order to properly fund our counsel fee payments for indigent defendants. And we also have to have an 87 COMM. ON LAW & GOV'T - RES. NO. 980660 eye towards the increase in the monies available for juror fees. So I give you that as a precautionary thing that should be thought about. And that is that it will be, I think, a substantial increase in expenditures that we now make for these various -- to these various sources. I also have a feeling that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. And if, as has been reported by the press, the district attorney's office is saying, Well, we would only insist on a jury trial in 5 percent of the cases, are we really talking about something so substantial that we have to upset the existing status quo? I don't think that this is a question of judge-bashing. I think it is a question of judge-shopping. If they are dissatisfied with a judge's philosophy, they will look to get the case out of that room or to turn it over to the hands of a jury where they feel that they have people more sympathetic to their point of view than the judge would be. For the most part, if we want to talk about homicides and if we want to talk about 88 COMM. ON LAW & GOV'T - RES. NO. 980660 felonies, we're all ware of the fact that first-degree and second-degree homicide carry with it statutory penalties the judge has no ability to tamper with. Third-degree murder has a range of from to years; and depending upon the 7 circumstances, the judge has the right to decide 8 what the penalty is. 9 As far as felonies are concerned, we 10 have statewide guidelines for sentencing. And if 11 a judge deviates from the sentencing, he must or 12 she must provide written commentary as to why 13 there's a deviation from those guidelines. 14 So I am frankly a little bit concerned 15 as to the reason why this is being offered to the 16 public. And as I said, if we're talking 5 percent 17 of the cases, we're not really talking about a 18 substantial amount of the cases. 19 I have statistics. And the last year 20 that I have that has been prepared by the administrative office of the Pennsylvania courts is for the calendar year 1996. And I want to show you that there is something peculiar or different about Philadelphia than other counties in Pennsylvania. 89 COMM. ON LAW & GOV'T - RES. NO. 980660 In the year 1996, 19,335 criminal cases were disposed, of which 9576 were guilty pleas, 3177 were non-jury trials, and 541 were jury trials. If they are talking about 5 percent of the non-jury trials, then we are talking about what, another 150 cases, 200 cases at the most. And if we are going through this exercise for that purpose, I don't think there's a cost benefit attached to it. By comparison, if you want to look at Lehigh County, which is Allentown, they disposed of 3700 cases, of which 2334 were by way of guilty plea, which means that 2/3 of their cases were disposed of by guilty pleas as opposed to the totals that I have shown you where, it's less than half. Now, they had only 13 non-jury trials and 37 jury trials. So the impact of the district attorney being able to insist on a jury trial would only have affected 13 of their cases, and 5 percent of that is almost de minimus. Whereas in our county, we will have to increase, along the lines that I've indicated to you, all of these various appropriations to accommodate them. 90 COMM. ON LAW & GOV'T - RES. NO. 980660 If they are concerned about the penalty phase of it, as I said, there are already statutory penalties, mandatory penalties, and sentencing guidelines. And I frankly am at a loss to understand the need for this constitutional amendment. These are the comments I offer to you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Your Honor. JUDGE BONAVITACOLA: Good morning.
I want to make sure that I took the numbers down correctly. Did you say that the First Judicial District disposed of 19,336 criminal cases. JUDGE BONAVITACOLA: In 1996.
1996. JUDGE BONAVITACOLA: They're the last full-year statistics I have.
I understand. And that there were 9,576 guilty pleas? JUDGE BONAVITACOLA: Correct. 91 COMM. ON LAW & GOV'T - RES. NO. 980660
And 3,177 non-jury trials? JUDGE BONAVITACOLA: Correct.
And 541 jury trials? JUDGE BONAVITACOLA: That's right.
Okay. So that leaves somewhere in the neighborhood of -- what happened to the other 6,000-some-odd cases? JUDGE BONAVITACOLA: 2692 were disposed of by being withdrawn.
Withdrawn. Now, who withdraws the case? JUDGE BONAVITACOLA: Well, the prosecutor would withdraw them if they felt it was not worthy of prosecution.
Okay. And that's 2692 withdrawn, and so that leaves us with 3 to 4,000 still sitting out there. What happened to those cases? JUDGE BONAVITACOLA: Well, they fall into a variety of categories. There's ARD, which accounts for another 285.
ARD, mm-hmm. 92 COMM. ON LAW & GOV'T - RES. NO. 980660 JUDGE BONAVITACOLA: There are Rule 1100 dimissals, which accounted for 35 during that year.
Okay. JUDGE BONAVITACOLA: And then there's another category called "inactive cases," and I frankly don't know what that means.
I understand, no 10 problem. On the 3177 non-jury trials, do you have any information as to what the actual disposition was in those particular cases; guilty, not guilty? JUDGE BONAVITACOLA: I do not.
Okay. And how about for the 541 jury trials? JUDGE BONAVITACOLA: I do not.
Okay. Now, do you keep a list over at the First Judicial District of any of the alleged soft judges, people who are predisposed to be biased towards the prosecution? Is there an active running list of these people? JUDGE BONAVITACOLA: We do not.
Okay. And do you 93 COMM. ON LAW & GOV'T - RES. NO. 980660 believe that there's any particular overwhelming bias by the, what are there, 70 or 80 common pleas court judges? JUDGE BONAVITACOLA: Well, we have 90 but approximately 60 of them are deployed on the criminal side of the court.
Now, do judges take an oath regarding their disposition of cases and how they handle jury and non-jury trials? Are they supposed to be unbiased in the handling of their duties? JUDGE BONAVITACOLA: Most assuredly. Their oath of office says that they will abide by the constitution and the statutes adopted pursuant to the constitution.
And what is the function of a judge in a courtroom, a jury or a non-jury trial? What is their role? JUDGE BONAVITACOLA: The role essentially is as follows: In a jury trial, the judge is the arbiter of the law and instructs the jury on the items that they must consider and items they must ignore in reaching their decision on the question 94 COMM. ON LAW & GOV'T - RES. NO. 980660 of whether the person is guilty or not guilty. In a non-jury trial, the judge instructs him or herself on the same issues of law but, at the same time, makes a determination as to what the facts are and whether the person is guilty or not guilty of the offense. So essentially, it combines, in a non-jury trial, the function of fact-finding and law-finding in the judge. And in the jury trial, those two issues are fundamentally separated.
My last question would be: As a practitioner, are there any particular reasons why defendants choose or choose not to have a jury trial? JUDGE BONAVITACOLA: One may be, if they are privately retaining counsel, expense. I am sure that if you were to get practitioners and ask them to quote you what their reasonable fee would be for a jury and a non-jury trial, you would have a very wide divergence. Number two is they would be put upon to come up with more monies perhaps with this newfangled theory of jury selection, where there are people who allegedly are experts on what kind 95 COMM. ON LAW & GOV'T - RES. NO. 980660 of jurors you should be picking. That would be an additional expense that they would have to incur. So things of that nature would certainly kill their right to request a jury trial.
Thank you. Are there any other questions of Judge Bonavitacola? (No response.)
Let me interpose one. The views you represent seem to me to be similar to the views expressed by -- I may not have the exact name of the organization, but the Pennsylvania Conference of Trial Judges? JUDGE BONAVITACOLA: Yes. We are constituent members of the Pennsylvania Conference of State Trial Judges. They recognize that each individual community has a different history of handling matters, and they have recognized that this would impact severely on certain communities within the Commonwealth whose history and customs and usages are different.
And for that reason, 96 COMM. ON LAW & GOV'T - RES. NO. 980660 they've reached the conclusion to feel that these amendments are not in the best interests of the court system. JUDGE BONAVITACOLA: That's true.
All right, are there any other questions? (No further questions at this time.)
If not, thank you very much. I'm going to back down on my word to the two representatives of the district attorney's office to let a few other groups testify briefly because of time requirements. Is Brenda Frazier here speaking on behalf of the Pennsylvania Prison Society?.
Excuse me, Councilman, I'm sorry to interrupt and I apologize. It's just that this is obviously going much later than I expected or Mr. Tennis expected. Can you give me some idea as to when --
Yeah, it will be 97 COMM. ON LAW & GOV'T - RES. NO. 980660 very brief.
But the staff made certain commitments that I want to adhere to representatives of these groups. The Chair would like to recognize for a moment Councilman Rizzo to introduce another group of students.
We have a visiting class, the 6th-grade class from Sayre Middle School, at 58th and Walnut, in Councilwoman Blackwell's district. And with the class is Mr. Pitt, their teacher. Welcome to City Council. (Applause.)
Thank you very much. We're very pleased, indeed, to have you come. And if you can't stay throughout the hearings, we invite you to come back again. We'll try to get you credit for a civics course. I would like to ask, is Barbara DiTullio here representing Pennsylvania NOW? And is the representative of the National Clearinghouse for the Defense of Battered Women here? Would you come forward too? 98 COMM. ON LAW & GOV'T - RES. NO. 980660 And Citizens for Consumer Justice, Lauren Townsend, would you also come forward? (Above parties come forward.)
And I would ask that each of you identify yourself for the record, identify the organization you're representing, and please hold the microphone very, very close to you in order to make sure that what you're saying is being heard by everyone. Please go ahead, Miss DiTullio.
Thank you. My name is Barbara Burgos DiTullio, and I'm president of Pennsylvania National Organization for Women. I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak before City Council today. I appear before you representing the more than 9,000 members in 40 chapters across the state of Pennsylvania. We strongly encourage City Council to pass the resolution against ballot question number 2 in the general election. Ballot question 2 covers the proposed amendment to the Pennsylvania constitution, giving prosecutors the ability to request a jury trial in criminal cases. Currently, under the Pennsylvania 99 COMM. ON LAW & GOV'T - RES. NO. 980660 constitution --
May I interrupt? My impression was that was the first question. Did I have that wrong?
Okay. I think the first question on the ballot will relate to the jury question.
And then the second question is the jury. The third question, which this committee feels very strongly about, and Councilman Nutter was given the opportunity to make a long speech urging that we get modern voting machines everywhere.
And to expedite the 100 COMM. ON LAW & GOV'T - RES. NO. 980660 electoral process.
Well, then what I would request, Councilman Cohen, is that in my remarks, we just strike question 2, and we'll talk about this particular question.
Currently, under the Pennsylvania constitution, defendants have the right to decide whether they want a trial by jury or by judge. If this amendment to the constitution passes, it would allow a prosecutor to demand a jury trial regardless of the defendant's decision. Jury trials are longer and more expensive in cases heard by judges. This brings me to my first point, which already has been stated by many other people, that this is an added financial burden to the taxpayers of Pennsylvania. As to my second point, the reality is that women still earn less than men across the board. This is true specifically in Pennsylvania. Women also hold the majority of low-wage jobs in the Commonwealth. We cannot ignore the economic burden 101 COMM. ON LAW & GOV'T - RES. NO. 980660 that this would place on women who are defendants in criminal cases. It could force many innocent women, especially poor women and those who are victims of domestic violence into no-win situations. These women must be able to determine for themselves if they can afford the added cost of a jury trial and the additional expense of expert testimony from witnesses which are frequently required to explain the kind of trauma that domestic violence victims go through. Those women who cannot afford a jury trial may then be forced to plea-bargain, even if they are innocent. Finally, we are in agreement with concerns expressed by a number of other women's organizations, including the National Clearinghouse for the Defense of Battered Women and the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence. They have raised a key issue concerning the misinformation that exists about battered women. These stereotypes and prejudices may be used by prosecutors to misdirect the jury's attention. The real issue of self-defense can be 102 COMM. ON LAW & GOV'T - RES. NO. 980660 lost and the focus can quickly become whether the woman is really battered. At least under the current system, judges have a track record of hearing such cases and may be in a better position to make a ruling based on facts instead of stereotypes. In the interest of justice, we believe that defendants should be the ones to choose their method of trial. Please allow those who do not want or cannot afford jury trials to continue making this determination for themselves. And we hope that City Council will consider passing a resolution in opposition to this amendment to the Pennsylvania constitution. I also have testimony here, but I will wait until the other people go from the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence. They had it faxed today and we did hand it in, and I could read it in, if you choose, but I'll let the others --
Why don't you do that after the live witnesses testify.
Members of City Council, my 103 COMM. ON LAW & GOV'T - RES. NO. 980660 name is Lisa Laura, and I'm the legal coordinator at the National Clearinghouse for the Defense of Battered Women, located here in Philadelphia. The National Clearinghouse assists battered women who, in response to their victimization, end up in conflict with the law. All too frequently, women who have been battered and have not received adequate protection from society's institutions, including the police and the legal system, are forced to resort to violence or other illegal acts to defend their lives and those of their children against ongoing abuse. Sadly, these women who are victims then become defendants in a criminal prosecution. Our mission, since we opened our doors in 1987, has been to advocate for these victims of violence who continue to flood our nation's courtrooms and fill our jails and prisons. The National Clearinghouse strongly opposes Joint Resolution 1998-2, ballot question number 2, I believe. This proposed amendment to the Pennsylvania constitution giving the prosecution veto power over a defendant's critical decision to request or waive a jury trial 104 COMM. ON LAW & GOV'T - RES. NO. 980660 endangers battered women's safety and interferes with the fair and efficient resolution of their cases. One of most troubling aspects of the proposed amendment is that it increases the likelihood that juror bias and misconceptions about battered women will be exploited and further undermines the possibility that battered will receive fair trials. It's been our experience in working on cases throughout Pennsylvania and across the country that prosecutors frequently appeal to jurors' stereotypes biases, and misconceptions about battered women. In doing so, they divert attention from the true legal issues in these cases and prevent juries from fairly and correctly assessing battered women's legal defense claims. For instance, we know that many jurors think that battered women could leave their abusers at any time if they wanted to and believe that this is the only option that will lead to their safety. We have seen some prosecutors exploit this misconception, suggesting to the jury that because the defendant did not just leave, 105 COMM. ON LAW & GOV'T - RES. NO. 980660 she's responsible for her own predicament, and that by staying with the batterer, she assumes the risk of his violence and waives the right to defend herself. Similarly, jurors often misunderstand the reasons why battered women may decide not to leave, why they might choose not to call the police or report the abuse. Prosecutors sometimes capitalize on these misunderstandings, urging the jury to find that if the abuse really occurred or was as bad as she described, she would have and should have sought help. We have seen some prosecutors encourage jurors to find that because a battered woman did not leave or seek help, she simply must be lying about the abuse and the incident itself. When prosecutors appeal to such biases, stereotypes, and misconceptions about battered women, injustice results. The Supreme Court of this Commonwealth has recognized as much. In Commonwealth v. Stonehouse, a landmark case in Pennsylvania, the defendant, herself a police officer, suffered a long and severe history of abuse at the hands of her husband. She was 106 COMM. ON LAW & GOV'T - RES. NO. 980660 charged with killing him and claimed self-defense at trial. In reversing her conviction, the Supreme Court noted that the Commonwealth had built its case upon erroneous misconceptions about battered women, and it detailed throughout its opinion the various ways in which the prosecutor had actively exploited them. The court concluded that the jury had been forced to assess the defendant's claim of self-defense on the basis of unfounded myths.
Given jurors' biases, stereotypes, and misconceptions about battered women and the willingness of some prosecutors to exploit this misinformation, the defendant and not the prosecutor must have the ultimate right to assess whether a fair jury trial is possible. When a battered woman defendant decides, after weighing the above factors, that she cannot get a fair trial by jury, her decision must stand; otherwise, she may be left at the mercy of a prosecutor who might override her decision and compel a jury trial precisely in order to exploit jurors' misinformation about 107 COMM. ON LAW & GOV'T - RES. NO. 980660 battered women. By giving prosecutors this veto power, the proposed amendment would seriously jeopardize the ability of battered women to receive fair trials in this commonwealth. Another very serious consequence of the proposed amendment is that it may increase the risk of violence against battered women. For many battered women defendants, the pendency of the trial can be a very dangerous time. The danger can come from either the batterer's family or the batterer himself if he is still alive. The batterer, realizing that he has increased power, not that his partner is facing criminal charges, often intensifies his campaign of terror against her. He knows that his partner has even less power than usual. For example, what is she if going to do if she gets beaten up again, call the police? What will the police do when they find out she's got assault charges pending against her? Additionally, a batterer can use a jury trial demand as yet another tactic of power and abuse. A jury trial will inevitably drag out the proceeding, often over a year or more, thus 108 COMM. ON LAW & GOV'T - RES. NO. 980660 keeping the battered woman in a state of increased danger and vulnerability. If she has not made bail, the effect of lengthening the process would be to keep her behind bars and away from her children. While we understand that under the proposed amendment, the Commonwealth, rather than the complainant would make the ultimate decision of whether or not to demand a jury, obviously, the prosecutor will be strongly influenced by the complainant's desires. From a practical standpoint, prosecutors might be hard pressed not to comply with a jury demand request from a complainant, given that many prosecutors cannot afford to lose their cooperation. The National Clearinghouse is also concerned that if the proposed amendment is passed, it will be used by the prosecutor to force plea negotiations. We work with countless battered women who, arguably, should not even have been arrested since they were acting to defend themselves. Yet, many of these women simply collapse under the pressure of the prosecution and take pleas despite their factual innocence. And 109 COMM. ON LAW & GOV'T - RES. NO. 980660 this is when they are not forced into jury trials against their will. This is especially so for poor and middle-income battered women, who often scrape up their last dollars to afford attorneys and experts and could easily be bullied into pleading instead of undergoing the expense and other risks of a jury trial. Finally, giving the Commonwealth the right to compel a jury trial will impact profoundly on those communities with limited judicial resources and interfere with battered women's access to civil justice, including protection orders and family law matters. This will inevitably mean delay for battered women and children, who often desperately and urgently need help and protection from the legal system. This delay only serve to increase the danger in the household and make it more likely that some battered women will have no choice but to resort to violence to defend their lives and those of their children. The very system that battered women will then turn around and prosecute them as defendants, and the cycle of injustice 110 COMM. ON LAW & GOV'T - RES. NO. 980660 will continue.
For all of the above reasons and in the interest of justice for all battered women charged with crimes, we strongly urge voters to join us in opposition to the proposed amendment. Thank you.
Well, thank you. I'm going to ask that everybody remain for questions. Miss Frazier, I'm going to ask Miss Frazier to be next 'cause I called her first and she had to be out of the room. But do I understand, Miss Townsend, I don't want to get into a discussion, but did your testimony say that if the amendment passes -- not Miss Townsend, you --
Yeah, thank you. That what the amendment proposes to do is to take the ultimate decision as to a jury away from the defendant and grant it to the prosecutor?
That is the impact, you're saying? 111 COMM. ON LAW & GOV'T - RES. NO. 980660
All right. That can be discussed, you know, and agreed with or disagreed with. I just wanted to make sure I understood the impact. Miss Frazier.
Identify yourself and the organization for which you speak.
Members of the City Council Committee on Law and Government, my name is Brenda Frazier Clemens. I'm a member of the Board of Directors of the Pennsylvania Prison Society.
You're very kind, thank you. I'm here to present the testimony of the Executive Director, Mr. William DiMascio. I offer it to you on behalf of the board of directors; our chairperson, Dr. Julia Hall; and the many Pennsylvanians whose lives have been 112 COMM. ON LAW & GOV'T - RES. NO. 980660 touched by the Pennsylvania Prison Society. The Pennsylvania Prison Society dates from 1787, when it pioneered prisoner visitations. It is the oldest organization of citizen volunteers from all walks of life that seeks to promote prison reform. They have become advocates for prisoners and their families in securing humane treatment and a rehabilitative model for all prison strategies. These are the remarks of Mr. William DiMascio, Executive Director: Once again, next month, Pennsylvanians will be asked to make an important change to the state constitution. Supporters of the amendment would like to consider it as the Commonwealth right to trial by jury, but you might also wish to consider it as giving the Commonwealth more power to hold over the head of the accused. The Pennsylvania Prison Society joins with the diverse assortment of organizations that urge you to vote no on this amendment. In fact, the only proponents of this change are members of the District Attorneys Association. They don't like to lose trials. And when they do lose, they 113 COMM. ON LAW & GOV'T - RES. NO. 980660 like to have a scapegoat; usually, that takes the form of a judge. It's been said that prosecutors want this change so that they can put an end to judge-shopping. Defendants, they say, use their right to demand or waive jury trials as a means of finding judges that they feel will be lenient. Some judges are more lenient than others; of course, just as some are harsher than others. On balance, however, Pennsylvania's criminal justice system can hardly be called soft when, in a period of declining crime rates, our prison population's arising at record rates. We now have more than 36,000 inmates at state prisons -- that's 150 percent of their capacity -- and more than 20,000 others in county jails. What this amendment would do is to take rule-making power away from the court, the only impartial party in a criminal proceeding, and give to it the prosecutor. Prosecutors already are acknowledged to be the most powerful players in the courtroom. They have the power to determine who gets charged, the nature of the crime, when to engage in plea-bargaining, and so forth. And 114 COMM. ON LAW & GOV'T - RES. NO. 980660 compared with most criminal defendants who are represented by public defenders, district attorneys have access to the public treasury and virtually unlimited legal resources. The defendant, on the other hand, has only one right: to demand a jury trial if he feels he has a strong enough case and if he can afford to pay a lawyer. We ought not to be altering the constitution in a way that creates a financial hardship for the accused to defend himself; nor should we be seeking such a change as a way of strong-arming defendants into accepting plea bargains and plea agreements. Finally, votes should be wary of this measure, as it appears to be part of a movement to rewrite the constitution in bits and pieces, almost always with limited knowledge and input from the electorate. Another current ballot question would alter provisions of the constitution which have to do with denial of bail in criminal cases. This measure would also undo important decisions established by our constitutional framers, who 115 COMM. ON LAW & GOV'T - RES. NO. 980660 were well aware of the power of the state to take unfair advantage of individual citizens. When you consider the total political nature of last year's referendum on the Pardon's Board, that makes three amendments in the course of a year. If we need to amend the constitution this rapidly, it might be time to consider a Constitutional Convention.
In the meantime, we urge voters to put a stop to this piecemeal tinkering with justice. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Miss Frazier. Before Miss Townsend goes, let me make clear for the record that this committee worked very hard to get witnesses from every conceivable point of view. We sent notices to every organization we had a record of. No matter what their positions were. And those who accepted the invitation -- and most of the groups were called two or three times to make sure that we heard from them. So that what we're having here is the testimony not of a selected group of individuals 116 COMM. ON LAW & GOV'T - RES. NO. 980660 at all, but of those who responded to the committee's request and invitation to be heard on this testimony. I just make that clear that this is not a selected group of organizations or of witnesses, but it was open to everybody. The media had been informed several weeks ago that such a hearing would be held. They have apparently been working very hard 'cause we've heard from many people that they've been contacted by the media. Miss Townsend, we're delighted that you're here. Please proceed with your statement.
And I'd simply like to put on the record the fact that I am for this amendment and would so vote if I were here. 117 COMM. ON LAW & GOV'T - RES. NO. 980660 Is that appropriate?
Thank you, Councilman Cohen. Thank you all for allowing me to speak this morning. I have copies of my very terse and brief testimony right here for you. And I'm going to echo what you've heard a great deal about this morning, about disparity of resources. Again, my name is Lauren Townsend, and I'm the Executive Director of Citizens for Consumer Justice, or CCJ. CCJ is the state's largest consumer organization working on health and safety issues and on the preservation of our justice system. We urge Pennsylvanians to vote no on the November ballot question concerning the Commonwealth's right to a jury trial. As in a civil trial, where a plaintiff is up against the resources of a corporate defendant, the defendant in a criminal trial has 118 COMM. ON LAW & GOV'T - RES. NO. 980660 fewer resources than the Commonwealth. It is only with our pursuit of a level playing field that impartiality and fairness can prevail in our justice system. Most plaintiffs in civil trials and defendants in criminal trials have only one attorney and a minimal support staff to assist them in their case. As consumers and to achieve balance and fairness, they must continue to have the right to choose their finder of fact. A constitutional amendment giving more power to prosecutors in criminal cases is anti-consumer, and it's stripping a defendant of the right to choose which finder of fact he or she believes will be more impartial. It is the impartiality of our system and our unwillingness to give unbridled power to the state which makes our justice system the envy of countries around the world. I urge members of City Council and the voters of Philadelphia and Pennsylvania to defeat this measure and preserve our justice system. Thank you.
Thank you very much. 119 COMM. ON LAW & GOV'T - RES. NO. 980660 Any questions from members of the committee of any of the members? (No questions at this time.)
I thought this testimony of before -- I'm going to ask you to read the statement.
Thank you, Councilman Cohen. This statement is from the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence. They are based in Harrisburg, but I will just read this --
I'm going to actually not go over all the points because the points have already been made.
We'll be very, very appreciative of that, and we can put the whole statement in the record.
Thank you. The Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence (PCADV) is a private, nonprofit organization dedicated to ending violence against women and children and restoring their fundamental 120 COMM. ON LAW & GOV'T - RES. NO. 980660 right to live fear in their own homes. PCADV, the first state domestic violence coalition in the country, was founded in 1976. Today it is comprised of 65 member programs that provide lifesaving services to victims of domestic violence throughout the Commonwealth. PCADV operates the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence and is a partner in the National Battered Women's Justice Project. The constituency of PCADV includes both battered women who are victims or witnesses of crime and those who are also defendants. Therefore, in our evaluation of the proposed constitutional amendments, we have viewed the proposal from the side of the prosecution as well as the defense. PCADV supports all efforts to build confidence in the legal system to assure that the rights of the accused and the victims alike are given due consideration and to enhance the cause of justice for all. After careful analysis, PCADV last year voted to oppose this amendment. Our position follows. 121 COMM. ON LAW & GOV'T - RES. NO. 980660 The proposed constitutional amendment will adversely affect the lives of battered women. And just some key points: It would delay justice and diminish safety; it would require additional court time and likely continuances; it would put further demands on our limited civil court resources; it could disproportionately affect low- and moderate-income defendants; batterers also would be provided with another tool to use against their abused partners with these kinds of delays. If prosecutors receive the power to demand a jury trial, a batterer may advocate that the prosecutor opt for a jury trial in order to continue his harassment and abuse of the victim. The batterer may argue for a jury trial in order to delay the trial, keep her in jail if she's not out on bail, or increase her attorney's fees. The proposed amendment would not guarantee successful prosecutions of batterers. I would think that most of the comments that are made here and the rest of the testimony, I hope, will be made a part of the record?
It mostly echoes a lot of the things that we've already heard from the National Clearinghouse, from NOW, and from others. And I thank you for the opportunity to speak.
The district attorney came in and painted with a broad brush the bias that this current system has against the prosecutor and the state. And one line that just hits me says that the current system -- and I want your opinion about this line and what you think of it. The current system that exists is completely one-sided and completely unfair to the victims. And I would like someone to give me -- if the criminal justice system that we have today is totally balanced towards the defendant and that the state is put into such an unequal sort of situation, I guess, as this statement says.
Pleasant go ahead. 123 COMM. ON LAW & GOV'T - RES. NO. 980660
My name is Lisa Laura, and I'm an attorney at the National Clearinghouse for the Defense of Battered Women. And from our experience, the vast majority, the overwhelming majority of battered-women defendants are convicted and go to prison for a long time. So, from our perspective, the Commonwealth seems to be doing just fine without a constitutional right to a jury trial.
And you mean that they're not understanding and they're not finders of justice? Or they're finders of a victory in terms of how many people they put away?
I think that should be the 124 COMM. ON LAW & GOV'T - RES. NO. 980660 goal. I don't know if that is the reality.
May I also make a point? And I'm not sure if the National Clearinghouse could bear this out in terms of --