Women’s groups blast appointment of Judge Nauhaus

Don’t want him handling PFA hearings

Women’s advocates are outraged by the recent appointment of Allegheny County Common Pleas Senior Judge Lester G. Nauhaus to preside over protectionfrom-abuse contempt hearings.

“I can’t think of a more inappropriate and dangerous assignment than to put Judge Nauhaus in charge of domestic abuse victims,” Susan Frietsche, a senior staff attorney with the Women’s Law Project, said Tuesday. “He traumatizes people.”

The advocates, who work with survivors of sexual and domestic violence, sent a letter to Common Pleas President Judge Jeffrey A. Manning late Tuesday urging him to reconsider Judge Nauhaus’ appointment and to meet with them on the issue. Eleven people signed the letter, including individual lawyers and top officials with service providers and legal advocacy organizations such as Pittsburgh Action Against Rape and the Center for Victims.

“It takes great personal courage for victims of sexual and/or domestic violence to report such violence to the justice system,” wrote Lorraine Bittner, the chief legal officer for the Women’s Center & Shelter of Greater Pittsburgh and

the lead signer. “The actions of Judge Nauhaus discount and can re-traumatize victims, sending the message that violence against women is trivial and not deserving of serious treatment in our judicial system.”

Judge Nauhaus was criticized last year after he suggested during a summary appeals hearing that an 18year-old before him pay a fine of $1 per touch in a case in which the teen had been convicted of harassment for inappropriate sexual touching over a period of years.

Now, Judge Nauhaus, 74, will preside over indirect criminal contempt hearings after a dispute between the heads of the family division and criminal division, both of which previously heard such cases. Those who violate protection-from-abuse, or PFA, orders — restraining orders against abusers that can be obtained by intimate partners or family members — are charged with indirect criminal contempt.

Judge Nauhaus did not respond to requests for comment.

The decision to appoint Judge Nauhaus to handle the cases — which are normally heard once a month over an afternoon — came from Judge Manning.

Following the controversy involving Judge Nauhaus last year, Judge Manning said he was removed from presiding over summary appeals. Further, he said Judge Nauhaus was required to complete sensitivity training offered by the county and was admonished by a sitting state Supreme Court justice.

He believes Judge Nauhaus, who was first elected to the bench in 1997 and took senior status four years ago, will “do a fine job.”

“Give him a chance and see how he does,” Judge Manning said. “If there are issues, I will take care of them.”

But Ms. Frietsche finds that answer to be unacceptable.

“This is no way to show the court cares about women’s safety and dignity,” Ms. Frietsche said.

After Judge Nauhaus’ behavior last year, the Women’s Law Project sent court monitors to observe him in summary appeals each time he took the bench.

“Our court monitors came back aghast. They reported intemperate, disrespectful and unjudicial conduct every single time,” she said. “I have no reason to believe anything will change with how Judge Nauhaus interacts with witnesses and clients.”

In the letter sent to Judge Manning, the advocacy groups said they were “stunned” by the appointment, considering that formal complaints against Judge Nauhaus are pending both with county court administration and with the stateJudicial Conduct Board.

“We are extremely concerned at the conduct of Judge Nauhaus and its impact, not just on the individual victim in the specific case at issue, but on all victims of sexual and domestic violence in the Commonwealth who may appear in his courtroom,” they wrote.

They called Judge Nauhaus’ actions “dangerous” and said they undermine the progress that has been made in the local justice system to show that “sexual and domestic violence is a crime and not just a personal/family matter.”

Ms. Frietsche said his behavior, “would be a problem in any court — even one that deals with code violations. It could be a tragedy in a court that deals with the safety of abuse survivors.”

Judge Nauhaus has come under scrutiny from the appellate courts for some of his actions on the bench. After former state Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin was convicted in a corruption case, he made her pose in handcuffs and have her photo taken by a county photographer. He wanted her to send the picture, with a handwritten apology, to every judge in the state. The appellate court said the apology notes were OK, but the picture was too much.

In the case involving the suggestion of a $1-per-touch fine, a prosecutor told Judge Nauhaus, “It is just highly inappropriate to tell a young girl that inappropriate touching is worth a dollar a time.”

In an interview then, the judge said he was not trying to minimize what happened to the victim but that he was trying to elicit from the commonwealth what penalty was being sought. “I didn’t mean to mock. I didn’t mean to denigrate,” he said.

Referencing the incident, the advocates said in their letter that Judge Nauhaus “was criticized for trivializing and joking about acts of sexual violence and intimidation in open court and in the presence of the survivors and defendants.”

The contempt hearings were moved to criminal division in 2001 at the request of the district attorney’s office and with agreement from court administration. Prosecutors felt having them heard by a criminal court judge showed the system was taking the cases more seriously, given that there were often safety concerns involved.

They remained in criminal division until 2016 when they returned to family court after the appointment of Judge David Spurgeon, who had been the first prosecutor to handle them in 2001. However, Judge Spurgeon, who won election in 2017, now has a full family court docket, which limits his time to handle those hearings.

On Tuesday, Judge David R. Cashman, the administrative judge in the criminal division, said the violation hearings are docketed in the family division and do not involve crimes. Therefore, he continued, they should not be heard by a criminal court judge.

Instead, he characterized alleged PFA violators as family division defendants who have failed to pay child support or follow the requirements of a family court order.

Judge Kim Eaton, the administrative judge in family division, was astounded by his description of the cases.

“That’s just wrong,” she said. “This has nothing to do with child support and nothing to do with custody. We do that all over here.”

Instead, Judge Eaton said, the kinds of violations addressed at the contempt hearings often involve “real threats of harm” — PFA defendants who show up at a victim’s home, school or workplace; who fail to turn over weapons as instructed by the court; or who exhibit stalking behavior.

The hearings are handled by an assistant district attorney and can result in potential criminal penalties of up to six months incarceration.

“If it’s not criminal, why do they have [prosecutors] doing them?” Judge Eaton asked.

Shesaid that her division is down 2½ judges and can’t handle the extra volume of cases. She noted that at least one judge in the criminal division volunteered to take the contempt cases, but Judge Cashmanwon’t allow it.

“I don’t get it,” she said. “I don’t get why this has become a thing.”

Judge Cashman countered, “That’s the sophistry that exists. They tell you in one breath they don’t have enough judges to do it, and in the next tell you it only takes two hours per month to do it.”

Judge Eaton said the concerns have been discussed with Judge Nauhaus.

“If I have any credible evidence that it’s a problem, I’ll shut it down immediately, and I’ll figure out something else.”