County judges again asked to allow proper public access to courts

Four advocacy groups said in a letter to Allegheny County judges this week that the public, including the media, is not being given the proper access to criminal court proceedings during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The letter, sent to President Judge Kim Berkeley Clark and criminal court Administrative Judge Jill Rangos on Tuesday, is the second sent by the groups on the issue.

The Abolitionist Law Center, Pennsylvania News Media Association, ACLU of Pennsylvania and Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law said in the letter dated Tuesday that the county court system has a constitutional obligation to ensure the public can observe the goings-on in its facilities. The courts were closed for several weeks as a result of the pandemic, although some business was conducted through videoconferencing prior.

The Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas reopened physically in early June. Since that time, though, the public and media have not had consistent options to observe proceedings, the letter said.

It cited social distancing requirements in individual courtrooms and said some hearings were continuing to occur remotely.

Since late June, the number of people testing positive for COVID-19 has continued to rise in Western Pennsylvania, and at least 10 employees who work within the court system — whether in the courthouse, magistrate’s offices or other buildings — have contracted the virus.

The rise in cases has prompted many complaints from those working in the system that the courthouse should be closed, and that hearings be held remotely.

“[I]t is neither safe nor reasonable to require that people who seek to observe Allegheny County criminal proceedings visit courthouses in person,” the letter said. “People cannot be forced to risk their health and safety in order to exercise their constitutional right to observe court proceedings — especially when the proceedings themselves are being conducted remotely.”

Allegheny County court administrator Chris Connors said they received the letter Tuesday and are reviewing it and discussing options.

In the letter, the groups said that the court denied their May 28 request to provide the public with remote access to all proceedings because of the planned reopening.

However, following on the heels of the increase in positive cases, Judge Clark on July 7 sent a letter to local attorneys urging them to familiarize themselves with video teleconferencing because it was necessary to conduct business and reduce the number of people inside the courthouse.

“We say the exact same logic applies to the public and the press,” said Nicolas Riley, of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection.

If the judges can make the video- or teleconferencing work for judges, attorneys, defendants and the jail, then it can do the same for the public, he said.

Court watchers from the Abolitionist Law Center were blocked from attending hearings at Pittsburgh’s Municipal Court in June by security, and they were forced to give up seats during a hearing in Common Pleas Court, as well, because of capacity, the letter said.

“These experiences demonstrate that, even if courthouses remain nominally open to the public, additional steps would still need to be taken to ensure meaningful public access to criminal proceedings,” the letter said.

During the pandemic, many jurisdictions across the country have been able to allow the public to call in or log in remotely to observe court proceedings, including the federal court system, which authorized that use of technology in late March.

Pennsylvania’s appellate courts also moved their oral arguments to a livestream on YouTube, Mr. Riley said.

“The technology exists, and it’s easy to use,” he said. “All these other court systems are operating under the same fiscal restraints.”

He cited as an example Philadelphia County, which used both teleconferencing and remote videoconferencing for proceedings when court facilities were closed.

Any members of the public or media who wished to observe a hearing had to email the court system ahead of time, and they would be provided with the phone number or link to a particular hearing or courtroom.

“We see courts at every state and federal level finding a way for the public to observe their proceedings, and there’s no reason Pittsburgh can’t do the same,” Mr. Riley said.

It’s possible the state Supreme Court could order Allegheny County to make its proceedings available. Short of that, the only option left would be litigation, he said.

“We do this work around the country,” Mr. Riley continued. “In most jurisdictions, a letter like we sent back in May does the trick.”