Justice Corry Stevens 10-Point Plan to Improve Judicial System

Justice Correale Stevens has always been one to swim against the tide. During his days on the Superior Court, he and fellow Judge Jack Panella began reaching out to the public with court sessions conducted at local colleges. Both are great believers in transparency.

When Justice Stevens was elevated to the state's highest court, Chief Justice Ron Castille lauded him:

"He brings a wealth of experience from the executive and legislative branches and from his recent service as president judge of Pennsylvania’s Superior Court. The transition to the Supreme Court will be difficult because it is a different court than the one he has been serving and the learning curve will be long and steep. But I know Judge Stevens will approach his new assignment with the same commitment and determination that he has brought to all of his professional challenges."

Against his own party's wishes, Justice Stevens believes he deserves election to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. So do I. Below is his 10-point plan to improve our judicial system:

1. Direct for appropriate oversight, accountability and periodic review of all Court-appointed boards, committees and speciality courts without interfering with their ability to perform their duties in an autonomous, independent manner.
2. Direct the Appellate Rules Committee to obtain public input and draft a Rule permitting members of the media to use electronic devices, such as laptops, to email and text from the courtroom during trials and to open the courts to televising proceedings, all of which will promote openness.
3. Direct that all appellate courts hold occasional argument sessions in schools, on college and law school campuses as well as in counties across the state and to allow television coverage of those sessions, which will give members of the public an opportunity to see their courts in action.
4. Direct that the judiciary promote and work to improve equal access to justice.
5. Direct that all members of the judiciary have ethics training.
6. Direct that all appellate court judges regularly provide continuing legal education programs to lawyers and work closely with the Pennsylvania Bar Association and local bar associations.
7. Direct that all appellate court memos, as well as opinions, be posted online for public access.
8. Direct regular court education programs with participation by judges for child advocate organizations, victims rights groups, crime watch and other community groups.
9. Direct the judiciary promote and maintain appropriate, professional contact with the Legislative and the Executive branches of government while maintaining its judicial independence.
10. Direct and promote continued positive relationships between the Supreme Court and the county courts and magisterial district judges.

Stevens believes that all areas of the court system, whether it be conduct of judges, administrative matters, reporting of cases, using technology, courtroom demeanor, and the administration of justice in Pennsylvania must continually be open to review, discussion, input and change.

One Great Judge Endorses Another

Superior Court Judge Jack Panella has every right to be bitter

But he's not.

He was defeated in a nasty election for the state Supreme Court by Judge Joan Orie Melvin, who cheated and used taxpayer resources. She's been tried, convicted and has resigned in disgrace. But instead of picking Panella to succeed her, Governor Tom Corbett has chosen the Superior Court's president Judge, Cory Stevens.

Instead of complaining, Judge Panella has sent a letter to The Express Times, unreservedly endorsing Stevens.  

Stevens, unlike Panella, is a Republican. Hard core, too. But like Panella, he's a great judge. In his time on the Superior Court, he has made strides to make the bench more transparent, conducting sessions at different colleges throughout the state. Earlier this year, Judge Panella headed one such panel at Northampton Community College.

Like Panella, he is also accessible. Although unable to discuss pending cases, he's as comfortable in a diner, drinking coffee with patrons, as he is in the rarefied atmosphere of a courtroom.

So despite their ideological differences, these two jurists have become good friends, genuinely admiring and respecting each other.

At a time when our judiciary has come under intense criticism, judges like Stevens and Panella exemplify everything that is right about our judicial system. I am delighted to see one of these class acts on the Supreme Court.

Did Superior Court Judge Stevens Cross the Line?

When I told you about Superior Court Judge Corry Stevens on Monday, I mentioned that he is unafraid to voice opinions, even on hot-button, political issues. That certainly makes him different from most judges. He does have one powerful ally, Supreme Court Justice Max Baer. "I think you have a right to know what I feel, what I believe in, who I am."

Yesterday, Stevens joined forced with other foes of illegal immigration, including our very own John Morganelli. They want new state laws or something. Needless to say, lots of folks are outraged that a judge would dare state his views.

Capitol Ideas' John Micek tells us Stevens may have gone too far. "Once legal ethicists and others picked their jaws up off the floor, they said Stevens, 60, probably went sailing over the line with his public comments."

But did he?

In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a judicial candidate has a first amendment right to speak out on issues that might come before the court. Pennsylvania thereafter relaxed judicial canons, allowing candidates to “announce” views on disputed legal or political issues. It still prohibits statements that “commit or appear to commit the candidate with respect to cases, controversies or issues that are likely to come before the court.”

Even in this watered down version, this canon has been enjoined by a federal district court. It is unenforceable.

That's why Stevens can speak, and we are the beneficiaries. Tim Potts at Democracy Rising has stated this injunction "means [judges] will be able to respond to a lot more issues than in the past. As long as we're going to have elections, they ought to be meaningful. Public confidence in the courts is [already] abysmally low."

Philadelphia lawyer Robert Nix, who just happens to chair the state Republican Hispanic Coalition, is among those outraged, and he intends to file a complaint with the Judicial Conduct Board.

Good luck with that one, Bob.

Now don't get me wrong, I get queasy when I hear undocumented workers scapegoated as the cause of all our problems. I disagree completely with both Stevens and Morganelli. But I think it's important that voters know who they're voting for, and I give Stevens credit for opening up.

Update: Stevens Defends Capitol Appearance. - In today's Hazelton Standard Speaker, Judge Stevens defends his appearance at a capitol press conference on Monday. Here's his explanation.

Kindly note I would like to clarify my visit to the Capitol on Monday, which was the result of an invitation to a press conference concerning the release to the public of a report on crimes committed and allegedly committed by people in the country illegally.

My comments were confined to a federal constitutional issue: federalism. In response to citizen complaints about the federal policy of non-enforcement of immigration laws, I suggested a possible solution would be to amend the federal immigration law to allow local governments to enforce the law.

Specifically, I spoke about providing due process rights in that county courts would be empowered, but not required, to hold deportation hearings. Thus, local communities which have serious problems with illegal immigration would have the tools to enforce laws that are already on the books.

Some present have chosen to characterize the event as some type of “rally” and have criticized me for being there.

Under current law, judges are permitted write, lecture, speak, even attend legislative hearings on just about any subject. I explained the rules and my reason for being present, and confined my remarks to the issue of sharing enforcement powers. As a former legislator, district attorney and trial judge, I was careful not to discuss anything involving the Pennsylvania legislature or executive branch.

Interestingly, even if the event were a “rally”, I would still have been able to attend and speak.

For example, all judges running for the open seats and the retention seats have appeared at “partisan” functions, namely the Democrat and Republican State Committee meetings.

And at those meetings speakers occasionally criticize the other political party, that’s part of our governmental process. By the judges being present, or even sharing the dais with those speakers, it doesn’t mean the judges are supporting or endorsing what is said. There are no prohibitions from those judges being present at the political party gatherings or even from speaking at those gatherings, in a year when those judges are up for election.

I can certainly understand that there is room for disagreement on the merits of what I said, the issue of federalism and allowing local governments more enforcement powers.

What concerns me is that there is the appearance now, from the news reports, that I had no right to discuss a federal constitutional issue not in any way before my court. I have always been sensitive to the need for judges to be fair and impartial in fact and in perception and will remain so.

Thank you,

Correale Stevens
Judge, Superior Court of PA

Retain the Superior Court's Correale Stevens, an Accessible Workhorse

Correale F. Stevens is the last of three judges seeking retention on the state superior court. I'll be supporting his bid. Most judges, once they don those black robes, tend to become aloof. But Stevens, in vast contrast to the norm, has made an effort to remain accessible to those he serves. His opinions are slightly right of center, but they also support individual liberties and an independent press.

Who is Corry Stevens?

Most appellate judges come from Philly or the Pittsburgh area, and simply lack the perspective that can be provided by someone outside their big city arenas. But Judge Stevens is a product of the coal regions, a "cracker." He lives in nearby Luzerne County.

Judge Stevens is a graduate of Dickinson School of Law, where he was a member of law review. After that, he served four terms as a state representative. That might explain his responsiveness. I sent him an email with a question about his teaching experience, and he replied the very next day with a very nice letter. That's very unusual from a sitting appellate judge. You usually have to jump through all kinds of hoops just to get an audience with a county judge's butler, but this superior court judge was both responsive and friendly.

After his stint as a Republican state rep, Stevens was elected Luzerne County DA in 1987. When his term was complete, he was elected county judge, and won his seat on the superior court in 1997.

What's highly unusually about Stevens is his attempt at outreach. In addition to teaching one evening every week at Penn State's Hazelton campus, he volunteers to speak at elementary and high schools about the judicial system. He has even held a town meeting in a local auditorium to hear questions and concerns about the courts in general. And his name is all over google as a judge in the statewide mock trial program, and that's strictly as a volunteer.

In his email, Stevens explains his efforts at bringing the courts closer to the people. "It is good for elected officials to be active in the community to listen to concerns of people, and to share thoughts on the workings of our government and to encourage students to learn about their government."

A Judge Unafraid to Speak Out

Let's be honest. Most judges duck issues, hiding behind their black robes. But Stevens is unafraid to address the most controversial of political issues, including our undocumented workforce. Although I disagree completely with his position, I am impressed that he thinks enough of the voters to be honest with them. As Max Baer said when he ran for the state's high court, "I think you have a right to know what I feel, what I believe in, who I am."

Stevens a Superior Court Workhorse

Judge Stevens has 354 published online opinions, and that's 50% more than the combined total of the two other superior court judges seeking retention - Orie Melvin and Musmanno. Only 39 of these are concurring or dissenting opinions, evidence that Stevens is a consensus builder.

His opinions reflect a judge who is prosecution-oriented, but who respects important constitutional rights.

He has been consistently tough on sex offenders. This includes a decision upholding a conviction for possession of child pornography. Although a defendant had merely viewed this type of porn on his computer, that was sufficient to uphold a criminal conviction for possession. "[Defendant's] actions of operating the computer mouse, locating the Web sites, opening the sites, displaying the images on his computer screen, and then closing the sites were affirmative steps and corroborated his interest and intent to exercise influence over, and, thereby, control over the child pornography."

He has also ruled that a fourteen year old child who shot at someone near innocent bystanders, can be tried as an adult. And when Pier 34 collapsed in Philly, causing three deaths and injuring forty-three people, Stevens dissented from a ruling that disallowed a felony prosecution. The supreme court eventually agreed with him.

Although tough on crime, Stevens has supported individual liberties.

In a defamation case by a police officer against a Lancaster newspaper that had published a letter to the editor, Stevens ruled that actual malice had to be established. His ruling was recently reversed, which is bound to have a chilling impact on free and open discussion.

Although he ruled against a gay couple's right to adopt, he made clear his decision is demanded by the letter of the law, not the sexual orientation of the couples seeking adoption rights. He just feels that it is up to the legislature, not the judiciary, to expand existing law.

Conclusion

While Judge Musmanno may be the superior court's long ball hitter, Stevens is their utility player. Day in and day out, he has been a workhorse. Not the usual judicial elitist, he is responsive to the people, has conducted town halls, speaks out on issues and even answers email. His decisions are conservative, but well-reasoned. I will vote to retain Stevens.