Joseph v. Scranton Times L.P.
604 Pa. 677, 987 A.2d 633, 2009 Pa. LEXIS 2340 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The appearance of judicial impropriety in the assignment or trial of a case is sufficient grounds for granting a new trial, under the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's constitutional supervisory authority, even without a showing of actual prejudice.
Facts:
- Former Judge Mark A. Ciavarella and former President Judge Michael T. Conahan engaged in a long-term criminal conspiracy.
- Conahan and Ciavarella received monetary payments from Robert Powell, Esq., a local lawyer who routinely appeared before them, in connection with the construction of two private juvenile detention facilities.
- Ciavarella intentionally did not reveal his lucrative, unethical, and apparently illegal venture with Conahan, nor his substantial financial connection to Powell, to litigants appearing before him, even in cases where Powell was present.
- Petitioners repeatedly voiced concerns that Respondents were 'judge-shopping' to have Ciavarella assigned to preside over their defamation case.
- Conahan and Ciavarella reassured Petitioners that their defamation case would be assigned randomly for trial.
- Conahan and William Sharkey, the former Court Administrator for Luzerne County (and Conahan’s cousin), hand-assigned the Petitioners' defamation case to Ciavarella, despite assurances of random assignment.
- Conahan maintained a long-term relationship with William D'Elia, including accepting unmarked envelopes delivered to the courthouse and meeting regularly with D'Elia, continuing these meetings even after D'Elia's arrest by federal authorities.
- The underlying defamation lawsuit concerned newspaper articles reporting on a federal criminal investigation into D'Elia's and Joseph's alleged ties to organized crime activities.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioners were involved in a defamation lawsuit where former Judge Mark A. Ciavarella presided over a bench trial in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County.
- Judge Ciavarella rendered a series of evidentiary decisions against Petitioners and returned a bench trial verdict in favor of Respondents in the amount of $3.5 million.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court assumed plenary jurisdiction over the case by order dated April 7, 2009.
- The Supreme Court specially appointed the Honorable William H. Platt, President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, to preside over a remand of the matter.
- President Judge Platt conducted a hearing and submitted a Report and Recommendation, suggesting a new trial based on an appearance of impropriety.
- Respondents filed Exceptions to President Judge Platt’s Report and Recommendation.
- Petitioners filed a Reply to the Exceptions, and Respondents filed a Reply to the Response (treated as a Sur-Reply).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a new trial warranted when there is an appearance of judicial impropriety in the assignment and trial of a case, even without a showing of actual prejudice, based on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's constitutional supervisory powers?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, a new trial is warranted because the assignment and trial of this case were infected with the appearance of judicial impropriety, making a showing of actual prejudice unnecessary under the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's constitutional supervisory powers. The Court adopted President Judge Platt’s recommendation, finding ample independent evidence of judicial impropriety, which included the documented criminal conspiracy between Conahan and Ciavarella, their undisclosed financial dealings with attorney Robert Powell, and Ciavarella's deliberate concealment of these facts from litigants. The evidence also showed that despite assurances of random assignment, Conahan and Sharkey hand-assigned the Petitioners’ defamation case to Ciavarella. The Court further noted Conahan's long-term relationship with D'Elia, which continued even after D'Elia's federal arrest, and the refusal of Conahan, D'Elia, and Sharkey to testify. Ciavarella himself admitted under oath to concealing the illegal venture and financial ties. Citing In Interest of McFall, the Court reiterated that the "appearance of impropriety is sufficient justification for the grant of new proceedings before another judge," and that a "tribunal is either fair or unfair." This standard, rooted in the Pennsylvania Constitution (Art. I, § 11 and Art. V, § 10(a)), does not require a finding of actual prejudice or a due process violation. The Court denied the Respondents' request to apply an 'actual prejudice' standard, reaffirming that the appearance of impropriety is the correct and sufficient measure. Accordingly, the Court vacated the verdict and judgment in the underlying case, as well as all substantive orders entered by Conahan and Ciavarella, and remanded for a new trial with a new judge, exercising its constitutional powers of supervision over lower courts.
Analysis:
This case powerfully reinforces Pennsylvania's stringent standard for judicial ethics, establishing that the mere appearance of impropriety, rather than proof of actual prejudice, is sufficient to necessitate a new trial. It underscores the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's expansive constitutional supervisory authority over the lower courts, affirming its power to intervene and correct situations where the integrity and public perception of the judiciary are compromised. The decision sets a critical precedent for challenging judicial conduct and assignments in the face of systemic corruption or undisclosed conflicts, emphasizing that judges' deliberate concealment of such conflicts gravely undermines the justice system and warrants severe remedial action.
