greetings from the - first judicial district of … · greetings from the state court administrator...

Nancy M. SobolevitchCourt Administrator of Pennsylvania

Greetings from theState Court AdministratorCreation of the Administrative Governing Board has provided afirst-ever forum for the leadership of the First Judicial District tocollectively identify problems and address solutions in a courtsystem with more than 100 judges, 250,000-plus cases and abudget exceeding $170 million each year.

Increasingly, judicial system management in Pennsylvaniareflects the values of collaboration and consensus as evidencedby the Supreme Court�s re-establishment of Pennsylvania�sJudicial Council and the Administrative Governing Board itself. Ina world of ever-increasing litigation, and increasingly complexlitigation, the foundation of a joint management structure inPhiladelphia�s courts underscores how working in a formal, yetcooperative, way can help balance public needs with effective useof scarce government resources.

For Pennsylvania�s courts to function ever more effectively on astatewide basis, the work of Philadelphia�s dedicated court staff,including the AGB�s members, can serve as one example of howfuture successes may be attained.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (seated, l-r): Justice Stephen A. Zappala, Chief JusticeJohn P. Flaherty, Jr., Justice Ralph J. Cappy(standing, l-r): Justice Sandra Schultz Newman, Justice Ronald D. Castille, Justice RussellM. Nigro, Justice Thomas G. Saylor

Alex BonavitacolaChair, Administrative Governing Board

Greetings from the ChairIt is with great personal pleasure that I introduce the inaugural issueof the First Judicial District�s Biennial Report. The Report docu-ments the hard work and dedication of our Judges, administrativepersonnel and, as importantly, our employees. Their cooperativeefforts enabled the First Judicial District to transition from themanual case processing methods of the recent past to the currentstate-of-the-art technological advances, which have provided thepublic greater Access to Justice.

During the period covered by this Report, we have moved forwardat a brisk pace. As detailed by Administrative Judge John W.Herron, the civil case inventory has been placed on fast-movingtracks, with increasing hands-on case management by judicial teamleaders and support staff. Pre-1995 inventory of major civil cases isgone, enabling the Court to promptly and expeditiously dispose ofcurrent inventory in accordance with the Trial Performance Stan-dards adopted by the United States Department of Justice and theNational Center for State Courts. The able direction of SupervisingJudge Legrome D. Davis, and the industrious performance of ourcriminal process judges, have kept the criminal inventory to amanageable level.

Administrative Judge Paul P. Panepinto implemented program-matic changes to address the needs and concerns of not onlyjuvenile offenders, but also victims and the community. Automa-tion has played an increased role in disposition of support, custodyand divorce matters, thereby providing more effective access tojustice.

Administrative Judge Petrese B. Tucker continues the tradition ofexcellence in one of the oldest Orphans� Courts in the nation.

Under the stewardship of President Judge Alan K. Silberstein andAdministrative Judge Robert S. Blasi, the Municipal Court of Phila-delphia continues its well-established practice of assisting the Courtof Common Pleas, in disposing both criminal and civil cases at anever increasing pace as well as effectively managing their highvolume jurisdiction.

The appointment of Judge Bernice DeAngelis as the Administra-tive Judge for the Traffic Court has brought about internalrestructuring of that Court which has generated record collections oftraffic fines and judgments, as well as the streamlining of theCourt�s procedures and introduction of novel programs, includingimplementation of the �boot and tow� law.

Finally, Joseph J. DiPrimio, Esquire, the Court Administrator ofthe First Judicial District, has provided invaluable assistance andguidance in unifying the Courts and divisions which compose theFirst Judicial District, thereby rendering Access to Justice equallyuniform and important throughout the District.

On behalf of the public which they serve so well, I thank the judgesand employees of the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania.

Joseph J. DiPrimio, EsquireCourt Administrator

Greeting from the Court AdministratorI am honored at having been provided the opportunity by theAdministrative Governing Board to assume a leadershipposition in this very exciting time during the long andillustrious history of the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania.

Today, more than ever before, the citizens of Philadelphiaenjoy access to the judicial process. Notwithstanding our pastand recent accomplishments during the 1996-1997 Biennium,First Judicial District judges, administration and staff areindividually dedicated members of a larger team whose primarygoal is to continue to improve on past performance in bringingaccessible justice to the people of Philadelphia.

In the following chapters you will find that the constituentCourts that comprise the District have worked hard to developand initiate strategies to further �Access to Justice.�Importantly, this work also pays homage to the beginnings ofthe rich history of the Philadelphia Court system that ourforefathers provided for us. With their forethought, they builtwhat was, and is today, a foundation for the future.

Mindful of the past, we have implemented modernmanagement techniques to improve service delivery, all thewhile never resting in our quest for excellence. This report isitself an historical event as it represents the first combinedpublication of all Courts of the District. For these reasons,this First Judicial District Special 1996-1997 Biennial Reporthas adopted a theme that reflects the efforts of judges andemployees alike: �Access to Justice: A Foundation for theFuture�.

I truly hope that you will find this inaugural reportinformative as well as enjoyable.

Executive SummaryThis biennial report represents, for the first time in history, acomprehensive description of the courts and divisions that com-prise the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania (FJD) highlightingparticipant individual and group dedication to the expedientprovision of accessible justice. The report is intended to convey asense of the commitment of the judiciary, administration, and FJDstaff to principles extolled in Trial Court Performance Standardsas set forth by the Bureau of Justice Assistance of the UnitedStates Department of Justice, and the National Center for StateCourts. Chief among these is the Court�s stewardship of thefounding principle of access to justice. A summary of the Accessto Justice Standards is included following the Historical Perspec-tive chapter. The report will also review the wide array of ser-vices and programs offered to achieve the mission.

To accomplish these goals the Special Report is formatted tomirror the general organizational structure of the District � fromthe FJD management upper echelon Administrative GoverningBoard (AGB) through the Common Pleas, Municipal, and TrafficCourt levels, including their respective divisional departmentalcomponents. Each of the major sections include brief historiesand descriptions of the constituent court and divisional organiza-tions, and their purpose, responsibilities, and achievements,featuring biennial initiatives and anticipated advances.

Importantly, readers should also gain an appreciation for thespirit of the FJD organization. District judiciary and staff areteamed to capitalize on individual talents, while mindful of theirroles as contributors to common goals. As reaffirmed through thereport, sound management and effective coordination produce awork force that, as an entirety, is much greater than merely thesum of its parts. Collectively, FJD judges and employees aspireto provide the highest possible standard of justice, in a fair andaccessible manner.

Also, the Special Report will serve to illustrate, through organi-zation charts, graphs, statistics, photos, comments of Courtleadership, and revealing examinations of integral units, thecurrent and future administration of justice in the First JudicialDistrict of Pennsylvania � arguably one of the premier judicialsystems in the world.

1996-1997 SPECIAL BIENNIAL REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Historical Perspective............................................................................................................... 10Access to Justice .................................................................................................................. 17

Trends and Opportunities............................................................................................. 18Future Objectives........................................................................................................... 22

Administrative Governing Board............................................................................................ 23First Judicial District of Pennsylvania................................................................................... 28

Office of the Court Administrator.............................................................................. 31Data Processing and Technology.................................................................... 33Fiscal Administration........................................................................................ 34Human Resources Management....................................................................... 34General Administrative Support..................................................................... 36Management Analysis and Program Evaluation........................................... 36Statistics.............................................................................................................. 37

Court of Common Pleas............................................................................................................ 40Office of the President Judge...................................................................................... 43

Court Reporter Services................................................................................... 44Law Library........................................................................................................ 45Procurement Unit............................................................................................... 46Office of the Prothonotary............................................................................... 46

Statistics.................................................................................................. 48Trial Division ................................................................................................................. 53

Civil Section....................................................................................................... 55Statistics.................................................................................................. 61

Criminal Section................................................................................................ 63Active Criminal Records...................................................................... 66Office of Criminal Listings.................................................................. 66Pretrial Services Department............................................................... 66Adult Probation and Parole Department............................................ 67Common Pleas Courtroom Operations............................................... 68Interpreters’ Unit................................................................................... 68Statistics.................................................................................................. 70

Jury Selection Commission.............................................................................. 71Family Division.............................................................................................................. 74

Juvenile Branch.................................................................................................. 77Probation Department........................................................................... 79Medical Branch...................................................................................... 79Children and Youth............................................................................... 79Management and Staff.......................................................................... 79Statistics.................................................................................................. 83

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Domestic Relations Branch.............................................................................. 85Personnel and Facilities........................................................................ 89Operations and Case Processing.......................................................... 89Systems and Program Development................................................... 89Bureau of Accounts and IV-D Compliance....................................... 89Specialized Units................................................................................... 90Statistics.................................................................................................. 91

Orphans’ Court............................................................................................................... 95Statistics.............................................................................................................. 96

Municipal Court ................................................................................................................ 100Civil Division ................................................................................................................. 01

First Filing Unit............................................................................................... 102Civil Listings .................................................................................................... 103Data Processing................................................................................................ 103Writ Service...................................................................................................... 103Dispute Resolution Program.......................................................................... 104Courtroom Operations..................................................................................... 104Court Recorders............................................................................................... 104Trial Commissioners....................................................................................... 104Judgment and Petitions................................................................................... 104Statistics............................................................................................................ 106

Criminal Division........................................................................................................ 108Bail Commissioners (Preliminary Arraignment Courtroom)................... 109Criminal Listings............................................................................................. 110Criminal Coding............................................................................................... 110Courtroom Operations..................................................................................... 110Court Reporters................................................................................................ 110Private Criminal Complaints......................................................................... 111Emergency Protection from Abuse............................................................... 111Statistics............................................................................................................ 113

Traffic Court ................................................................................................................ 119Citation Management and Court Operations........................................................... 122Enforcement Services................................................................................................. 122Financial Control......................................................................................................... 123Statistics ................................................................................................................ 124

In Memoriam ................................................................................................................ 125Acknowledgements................................................................................................................ 126

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

Access to Justice:a Foundation for the Futureis the theme of the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania SpecialBiennial Report, for 1996-1997. Composed in the twilight of thetwentieth century, our report will introduce the reader to thevarious courts, divisions, judges, administrators, and support staffthat comprise the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, now morethan 200 years old. For the first time in one report, FJD accessibil-ity, progress, and productivity are measured by descriptivenarrations, supportive statistics, and detailed graphs and charts.Text, photos, and illustrations provide insight into FJD cutting-edgetechnology, in-house training programs, committees, and expandedfacilities. The Special Report�s presentation of the Court�s organiza-tional structure, services, and links to allied agencies and othergroups will demonstrate how closely aligned the District is with thetheme of our report, Access to Justice.

One element of this introduction is to provide a historical perspec-tive. Moreover, the concepts contained in the theme of our report �Access, Justice, Foundation, and Future - need to be defined for thepurpose at hand, then interplayed in an historic context throughoutthe perspective. Toward that end, the following are provided:

� Access: easy to obtain; the right to enter, approach, or use.

� Justice: fairness; the use of authority to uphold what is right, just,or lawful.

� Foundation: establishing a supportive base with provisions forupkeep and maintenance.

� Future: time that is to come; what will be; the prospective condi-tion of a person, place, or thing.

Now, with definitions in hand, please join us as we touch on anintegral component of the historic overview of the FJD: The JudicialReorganization Act of 1791.

Access to Justice: A Foundation for the Future10


In establishingthe five judicial

districts, theJudicial

ReorganizationAct of 1791

provided thefooting for

ACCESS.

The Judicial Reorganization Act of 1791

3 Smith’s Laws of Pennsylvania 28 (1791)

Chapter MDLXIV

An ACT to establish the judicial courts of this

commonwealth, in conformity to the alterations and

amendments in the constitution.

{Section II

And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That in order to

render effectual the provisions made in the said constitution for

establishing the courts of common pleas, this commonwealth shall be

and hereby is, divided into five districts, or circuits, to be limited as

follows, that is to say; the first circuit to consist of the city and

county of Philadelphia,..............}

{Section III

And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That in and for

each of the said districts, or circuits, a person of knowledge,

integrity, and skilled in the laws, shall be appointed and

commissioned by the governor, to be President and Judge of the

courts of Common Pleas within such district .............; which said

Presidents and Associate Judges shall have and execute all and

singular the powers, jurisdictions and authorities of Judges of the

Court of Common Pleas, Judges of the Courts of Oyer and

Terminer and General Goal ( Jail ) Delivery, Judges of the

Orphans’ Courts, and Justices of the Courts of Quarter Sessions

of the Peace, agreeably to the laws and constitution of the

Commonwealth.}

1996-1997 First Judicial District Biennial Report 11

insurgents, and rebel militia. Duringinclement weather, roads and trails werealmost impassable. Often upon theseperilous pilgrimages, a President Judge’sescort included a group of lawyers. Itwas custom for many members of the barof that period to accompany the courtsupon their circuits. The Judges werelooked upon as personages of greatimportance by the citizenry and holdingcourt in the various counties was re-

garded as a highly notable public event.Sheriffs, constables, and members of thepublic met the President Judge and hisgroup as they approached the countyseat. Seemingly an official parade orpageant, the true object of such a meet-ing was to provide safety to his Honor.

On the 13th day of April, 1791, an Actwas passed in the Pennsylvania Generalassembly — 3 Smith’s Laws 28 — whichput effect on the judicial features of the1790 Pennsylvania Constitution. The Actcreated five judicial districts by which allof the counties then in existence weredivided. Prior to 1791, each county courtconsisted of a quorum of Justices of thePeace or Justices of the Court appointedfor the county. The object of the cre-ation of judicial districts, consisting ofseveral counties each, was to providecourts with President Judges learned inthe law without providing such Judgesfor each county. Although in existencesince 1682, a President Judge was nowrequired by the 1791 Reorganization Actto be a person of knowledge, integrityand skilled in the laws.

The five original districts created bythe Act were the First Judicial Districtwhich included the populous easterncounties of Philadelphia, Montgomery,Bucks, and Delaware. The counties ofChester, Lancaster, York, and Dauphinwent into the Second Judicial District.The large Third Judicial District in thenorth contained the counties of Berks,Northampton, Luzerne, andNorthumberland. The Fourth JudicialDistrict was composed of Cumberland,Franklin, Bedford, Huntington, andMifflin counties. The Fifth JudicialDistrict covered the western part of theCommonwealth and included the coun-ties of Allegheny, Fayette, Washington,and Westmoreland.

Periodic journeys to county seatswere necessary in discharging theofficial duties of the President Judges.These journeys were usually performedon horseback, over dangerous anddifficult roads which were a haven forrogue indians, armed highwaymen,

A view of the Walnut Street Jail at 6th & Walnut, circa 1791;America�s first modern penitentiary.



to the Fifth District, Hon. AlexanderAddison. These were all steadfast,eminent, and heroic men. The districts ofPennsylvania had a uniformly strong setof Presidents during this period, onewhich included one of the most stirring,dramatic, and glorious eras in Americanhistory.

Judicial Districtsof Pennsylvania

1791

Alexander AddisonFifth Judicial District

Thomas SmithFourth Judicial District

William A. AtleeSecond Judicial District

James BiddleFirst Judicial District

Jacob RushThird Judicial District

The President Judges: to the FirstDistrict, Honorable James Biddle; to theSecond District, former PennsylvaniaSupreme Court Justice WilliamAugustus Atlee; the Third District,former Pennsylvania Supreme CourtJustice Jacob Rush; to the FourthDistrict, future Pennsylvania SupremeCourt Justice Hon. Thomas Smith, and

*The silhouettes of the President Judges were created from actual portraits. In place of Jacob Rush (portrait unavailable), we have inserted thesilhouette of former Pennsylvania Supreme Court Chief Justice Bejamin Chew.


President Judge James Biddle, anative Philadelphian of English descent,was born on February 18, 1731, andbelonged to a very distinguished familyof prominent Whigs during the Revolu-tion. He studied law in the office ofJohn Ross, then one of the foremostlawyers in the Province. He was admit-ted to the Philadelphia bar on April 18,1765. In 1788 he was appointed Pro-thonotary for the Philadelphia Court ofCommon Pleas and, later that year wascommissioned one of the associatejudges of that county. He was commis-sioned President Judge of the FirstJudicial District on September 1, 1791,and held that office until his death onJanuary 14, 1797. President JudgeBiddle was a vestryman of ChristChurch in 1776 and led their resolutionto omit prayers for the Crown of GreatBritain from the liturgy.

President Judge William AugustusAtlee was also a native Philadelphian.Born on July 1, 1735, he later moved toLancaster county where he read lawwith Edward Shippen, Esq. (future ChiefJustice of the Pennsylvania SupremeCourt). Admitted to the bar on August3, 1758, Justice Atlee served on thePennsylvania Supreme Court from 1777to 1791. Under the Reorganization Act,he was selected to head the court of theSecond District. An avowed Constitu-tionalist, his burning patriotic viewsduring the Revolutionary period earnedhim the name “savage Atlee”. Also, itis actually written that Justice Atlee wasprobably the most handsome of the fivenew President Judges. Justice Atleeheld the office of President Judge forthe Second Judicial District until hisdeath on September 9, 1793.

The President

Judges, allpersons of

wisdom andrighteousness,

and accomplishedin the laws, were

the epitome ofthe provision of

JUSTICE.

Appointed the first President Judgeof the Third Judicial District, Jacob Rushwas born November 24, 1747, in Philadel-phia. He was a brother of Dr. BenjaminRush, signer of the Declaration ofIndependence, eminent physician, andphilanthropist. Jacob Rush graduatedthe College of New Jersey (PrincetonUniversity) in 1765 and later received theDoctor of Laws. He was admitted to thebar February 7, 1769, and served asmember of the Supreme Bench of Penn-sylvania from 1784 until his appointmentto the Third District in 1791. He waslater appointed, in 1806, the PresidentJudge of the First Judicial District.Justice Rush was a man of great legalability, firmness, character, and elo-quence. He was a zealous patriot andardent Federalist who promulgated hispolitical views in charges to grand juries .Next in importance to his faith in Federal-ism, Justice Rush strongly believed in the

At far left, James Biddle�s 1791 courthouse at Second and High (now Market) Street,with Christ Church in the background.



maintenance of social order by the literaland rigid enforcement of laws againstvice and immorality. By many he wasregarded as a moral censor of theseverest school. He was a terror toevildoers and was pointed in his con-cerns for the youth of the day. Underinstructions from Justice Rush, littleboys were arrested by constables forplaying ball in the public streets onSundays. Jacob Rush passed on January5, 1820, his legacy permanently etchedin legal decisions, published andunpublished legal opinions, papers, andliterary essays.

Surveyor, pioneer, lawyer, Protho-notary, Recorder, Deputy Register ofWills, Member of the Assembly, andJustice of the Common Pleas, ThomasSmith of Bedford was appointed Presi-dent Judge of the Fourth JudicialDistrict in 1791. Born in Scotland inOctober, 1745, Justice Smith arrived inAmerica in 1768. Here, he joined his

President Judge

Smith and hiscolleagues

built theFOUNDATION

for justice inPennsylvania.

distinguished half-brother, WilliamSmith, first Provost of the old Collegeof Philadelphia (University of Pennsyl-vania), in building a foundation for theCommonwealth’s future. He was aMaster in Land Law and foremostamong Pennsylvania land lawyers.Thomas Smith was devoted toDickinson College and was among theCollege’s first trustees. He was also amember of both the ConstitutionalConvention and Continental Congress.In 1810, his nephew and former stu-dent, Charles Smith, was appointededitor of the Laws of Pennsylvania. Hisscholarly treatment of this appointmentcreated Smith’s Laws of Pennsylvania, apreviously cited reference which,coincidently, contains the JudicialReorganization Act of 1791. PresidentJudge Smith was commissioned Justiceof the Supreme Court on January, 31,1794, and served until his death onMarch 31, 1809.

Appointed to the Fifth JudicialDistrict was the Honorable AlexanderAddison. Born in Scotland in 1759 andeducated at Aberdeen as a Presbyterianclergyman, Judge Addison was apreacher of liberal sentiment in thewestern Pennsylvania mountain region.This same sentiment may have givencause for his later impeachment.Alexander Addison studied law and wasadmitted to practice at the Washingtoncounty bar in 1787. He was the young-est of the newly appointed PresidentJudges at age thirty-two. He wasdescribed by Thomas Smith as anexample of diligence and perseverance,aided by proper education, strength ofmind and prudent deportment. How-ever, impeachments were the order ofthe times. Judges were proceededagainst, not for high crimes and misde-meanors, but for alleged arbitrary

Philadelphia�s State House; the seat of State and Federal Government in 1791.


methods of administration. The popularjealousy of the life tenure of theirappointments had much to do with theopposition to the judiciary as a class,independent of partisan considerations.President Judge Addison’s bold stand,and published grand jury charges infavor of the Federal government duringthe Whiskey Insurrection, and hisopposition to French emissaries and tosecret political societies led to hisimpeachment and removal from officein 1803. President Judge Addisonresumed his law practice in the Washing-ton county area in 1804 until his death in1807.

By virtue of their appointments,each of the five President Judges wasalso a member of the Pennsylvania HighCourt of Errors and Appeals. TheJudicial Reorganization Act stated thatthe High Court of Errors and Appealswas also to include the four Pennsylva-

As the basis for ACCESS,led by learned and honorable President Judges

to dispense JUSTICE and to guide others to do likewise,building the FOUNDATION for a fair and equitable system

that evolved and memorialized judicial administrationfor the next two centuries, up to this day and into the FUTURE,

the First Judicial District and the four 1791 contemporary districts,whose numbers have expanded to 60 today,

are the real manifestation of:

Access to Justice: a Foundation for the Future

nia Supreme Court Justices: Chief JusticeThomas McKean, Justice WilliamBradford, Justice Edward Shippen, andJustice Jasper Yeates, three persons ofknown legal abilities (two of whom wereapparently never appointed) whichincluded the President of the Court,former Supreme Court Chief JusticeBenjamin Chew. Created in 1780 andreorganized in 1791, the High Court ofError and Appeals had appellate juris-diction over the Supreme Court itself,whose decisions it usually affirmed butonly occasionally reversed. The HighCourt was abolished in 1806.

In the same year, the city andcounty of Philadelphia became the onlydivision of the First Judicial District ofPennsylvania — 4 Smith’s Laws ofPennsylvania 270 ( 1806) — where it hasremained until the present.

ACCESS TO JUSTICE

Summary of the Access to Justice StandardsTrial courts should be open and accessible. Because location, physicalstructure, procedures, and the responsiveness of its personnel affectaccessibility, the five standards grouped under ACCESS TO JUSTICErequire a trial court to eliminate unnecessary barriers to its services.Such barriers can be geographic, economic, and procedural. They canbe caused by deficiencies in language and the knowledge of individualsparticipating in court proceedings. Additionally, psychological barrierscan be created by mysterious, remote, unduly complicated, and intimi-dating court procedures.

The intent of the first two standards is to bring the administration ofjustice into the open and make it accessible. Standard 1.1 requires thetrial court to conduct its business openly. To ensure that all personswith legitimate business before the court have access to its proceed-ings, Standard 1.2 requires the trial court to make its facilities safe,accessible, and convenient to use. Accessibility is required not only forthose who are guided by an attorney but also for all litigants, jurors,victims, witnesses, and relatives of litigants. Access to trial courts isalso required for many others�for example, beneficiaries of decedentsin probate matters, parents and guardians in juvenile cases, personsseeking information from public records held by the court, employees ofagencies that regularly do business with the courts (investigators,mental health professionals, sheriff�s deputies, marshals, etc.), and thepublic.

Because a trial court may be accessible to most and still hinderaccess to some, Standard 1.3 requires the court to provide opportuni-ties for the effective participation of all who appear before the court,including those with linguistic difficulties and handicaps. To promoteaccess to justice and to enhance citizens� confidence and trust in thecourt, Standard 1.4 urges that all court personnel accord respect,courtesy, and dignity to all with whom they come into contact.

Standard 1.5 recognizes that there are financial and proceduralbarriers to access to justice. It requires that the fees imposed andprocedures established by the court be fair and reasonable. Recognizingthe importance of the relationship between public records and access tojustice, the standard also requires that public records be preserved andmade available at reasonable cost.�1

1From Trial Court Performance Standards with Commentary: Commission on Trial Court PerformanceStandards - A Project of the Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice and the National Center forState Courts © 1990 by the National Center for State Courts.


ACCESS TO JUSTICE

Over the last two years, opportunities to broaden access to judicial proceedings and serviceshave emerged at lightning pace. With the explosion of information delivery capabilities, and aresurgence of public interest in the business of the Courts, the First Judicial District continuesto develop and erect platforms from which expanded information and other public serviceprograms may be launched, allowing more people to participate — more effectively than everbefore. Some of these prospective and very promising advancements are highlighted below.

Opportunity: Continue to achieve better judicialadministration through improvements in automation.

Trend:Sustained Rapid Improvement in desktop PC power.

Response:Begun in an effort to provide office automation hardware and softwareto judicial chambers, courtrooms and administrative offices, the FirstJudicial District is completing installation and upgrades to its net-worked personal computer system. Hardware and software standards,refreshed twice yearly, evolve with ever changing demands for addi-tional desktop processing power. The 50 server, 2,400 personalcomputer network distributed over 13 locations, is linked through ahigh speed wide area network.

Opportunity: Help to provide employees with the meansto reach their true potential and further improve access.

Trend:Judicial leadership and administrative support spark in-house training.

Response:The Human Resources Department has developed and presented aseries of in-house training programs for the employees of the FirstJudicial District including three important topics: 1) prevention ofsexual harassment; 2) Windows and Word Perfect computer upgrades;and 3) Stress Management and other specially tailored courses. Thegoal is to help employees to be the best informed, most courteousemployees in the State Court System.

The Judges and Employees of the First Judicial Districtaffirmatively endeavor, through their efforts toward achieving their

individual and collective goals in the administration of justice,to foster the primacy of, and continually improve upon,

ACCESS TO JUSTICE.

Trends and Opportunities

Criminal Justice Center


Opportunity: Utilize more responsive information services to broaden access tothe public.

Trend:Improved Automated Voice Response Systems — Judicial Leadership.

Response:Through the guidance of the Office of the President Judge, implementation of an automated courtinformation line (215-686-7000) expands access to the public. Callers are provided with generalcourt information, in English or Spanish, and, through a series of menu choices, connected to theoffice that can best answer or resolve inquiries. The automated system capitalizes upon an existingvoice mail system at no extra cost, and saves the First Judicial District many thousands of dollars ofpersonnel time. More importantly, the information line provides twenty-four hour access to thecourt and its various departments.

Opportunity: Translate Internet capabilities into improved accessfor governmental agencies, private organizations, and the public.

Trend:Burgeoning power and popularity of the Internet, Judicial & Administrativeleadership responsiveness.

Response:In 1997, the First Judicial District Internet website was completed and online.Although currently consisting of static data regarding the operations of thedistrict, the site’s features are rich in information and dynamic in terms of naviga-tion and linkage. Future avenues will lead to built-in website connectivity toselected court databases providing direct access to attorneys, governmentalagencies and the public.

Opportunity: Improve communication and widen public access tojustice through involvement of communities and victims as clientswith interest and standing in the system.

Trend:Growing public concern over juvenile delinquency.

Response:In 1996 Pennsylvania adopted a new approach to juvenile delinquency - theBalanced and Restorative Justice Model - in pursuit of three goals: 1) offenderaccountability to victims and communities; 2) public safety; and 3) development ofcompetencies for juvenile offenders. State funding led the Family Division JuvenileCourt to create the Victim and Community Services Program in 1997. The programworks to restore victims and their neighborhoods through the imposition ofrestitution and community service. Also following from this trend: creation ofSchool-Based Probation, Special Offenders, Firearms Violators, and Police-Proba-tion Partnership Programs.


City Hall


ACCESS TO JUSTICE

Opportunity: Through the application of modern case flow managementprinciples eliminate backlogs and restore access.

Trend:Explosion of civil litigation in the 1980’s.

Response:The Trial Division Civil Section, in employing specialized Court facilities, tailored judicialassignments, and volunteer judges pro tempore with the Day Forward and Day BackwardPrograms eliminated backlogs and concomitant delay, providing improved access in a very realsense, to a broad spectrum of the citizenry with divergent interests.

Opportunity: Improve and expand services to familiesin time of need.

Trend:Reinvigorated concentration on family values andresponsibilities.

Response:The Family Division Domestic Relations Court Branch institutedseveral improvements to better utilize resources and upgradeservice delivery including: 1) expansion of the Domestic ViolenceUnit; 2) establishment of the “643” Processing Unit to helpfamilies moving off welfare; 3) expansion of the Customer Ser-vices Unit; 4) change to less invasive techniques for paternitytesting; and 5) establishment of the Custody Masters Unit toexpedite processing of custody petitions.

Opportunity: Redesign programs to respond to the needs of the populace.

Trend:Increasing accessibility needs of the general public and disabled community.

Response:In the Municipal Court Civil Division the upper jurisdictional limit was raised to $10,000 toallow greater access to Small Claims Court. Dispute Resolution allows for expedited agreementprocesses, and almost 1,600 Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodation requestswere satisfied in 1996 and 1997. In the Criminal Division, Court services are available in thecommunities at Night Court, an Arbitration program settles community disputes, and TreatmentCourt deals with one of the underlying causes of criminal involvement: drug addiction.


Criminal Justice Center Courtroom


Opportunity: Address “Quality of Life” issues in the District’s high-volumeTraffic Court.

Trend:As the average citizen’s first, and often only interaction with the justice system, high volumeand public safety issues give rise to Traffic Court enhancements.

Response:Enhanced access to the Court’s facilities is provided by accommodating the public withextended weekday hours and additional Saturday hours. Working strategies in compliance withthe Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) like TDD phonesystems for the hearing impaired afford citizens greater access.Customer service representatives provide information, receivepayments (MAC and credit cards permitted), and help withhearing scheduling and assistance with license suspension.Work toward implementation of the “Boot and Tow” law proceedsto address public safety problems concerning unlicensed driversand improperly registered autos.

Opportunity: Safeguard the rights (access) of themisfortunate.

Trend:Increasing awareness of the population of incapacitated persons.

Response:The Orphans’ Court Division of the Court of Common Pleasensures the preservation of the rights of all parties before that Court — including those whotemporarily or permanently may not be able to fully participate on their own behalf.

Opportunity: Provide communities, victims, and defendants with greaternumbers of more timely dispositions.

Trend:Completion of the Criminal Justice Center (CJC).

Response:Since moving into the CJC just prior to the 1996-1997 Biennial Report period, the Trial DivisionCriminal Section reduced case inventory by approximately 1,000 cases utilizing case manage-ment initiatives.


City Hall Courtroom


ACCESS TO JUSTICE

Goal: Court data Internet availability.An Administration and Prothonotary sponsored program is to provide Internet access toCourt data for a fee in 1998.

Goal: Wipe out inventory of aged civil cases.The dedication of judges and employees and efficient case management are projected toresult in the elimination of all Trial Division Civil Section Day Backward Program in 1998.

Goal: Amass an even greater volume of more timely disposed criminal cases.Expansion of Differentiated Case Management techniques will result in their application toall Common Pleas criminal matters.

Goal: Continue to improve child support services.During 1998 and into the future, the Family Division Domestic Relations Branch willcontinue to streamline and improve its existing processes, including the ongoing refinementand expansion of PARENTS, the Court’s automated child support computer system. And,with an eye toward the future, the Branch has established a number of standing committeescharged with evaluating new and existing processes and technologies.

Goal: 1998 Implementation of Technological InitiativesWith the enthusiastic support of judicial leaders and the Court Administrator, the DataProcessing/MIS Department is working on myriad system upgrades and enhancements to theDistrict computing and communications environment:

• imaging project for online web browser access to UCC filings and divorce decrees;

• email gateway to City of Philadelphia agencies;

• Internet access;

• expansion of Human Resources’ “Remote Time and Attendance” reporting system;

• Adult Probation pilot case tracking project and expansion of the Pretrial online interviewapplication;

• online archiving system for notes of testimony with new systems for tracking CourtReporter and Interpreter assignments;

• expansion of the network at 1801 Vine Street to push Juvenile Probation case manage-ment initiatives;

• attorney, government agency and public Internet access to civil records;

• Internet access to civil data and electronic filing.

Future Objectives

First Judicial District leaders and employees look forward to moreoutstanding achievements in the future. Listed below are a few of the FJD

ACCESS objectives and goals for the future. The listed topics are highlightsof some of the intended accomplishments and methods to achieve the aims.

ADMINISTRATIVE GOVERNING BOARD

FJD ManagementThe centralized management infrastructure of the District waslargely defined by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in March of1996 through an order made effective April 1, 1996 that estab-lished the Administrative Governing Board (AGB) � a group ofjudicial leaders with extensive responsibilities for overall managementof the District. The board is aided by the FJD Court Administrator.The nine member AGB is made up of the three President and fiveAdministrative Judges of the Common Pleas, Municipal, and TrafficCourts and the subdivisions that comprise them, with the ninth seatoccupied by the State Court Administrator. Common Pleas andMunicipal Court President Judges are elected by their peers andAdministrative Judges are appointed by the Supreme Court. ThePresident Judge of Traffic Court is appointed by the governor.

The Honorable Alex Bonavitacola, President Judge of the Court ofCommon Pleas was designated by the Supreme Court as chairpersonof the AGB. The other members, and their respective positions are:1) Municipal Court President Judge Alan K. Silberstein; 2) TrafficCourt President Judge Frank Little; 3) Common Pleas Court TrialDivision Administrative Judge John W. Herron; 4) Common PleasCourt Family Division Administrative Judge Paul P. Panepinto; 5)Common Pleas Court Orphans� Court Division Administrative JudgePetrese B. Tucker; 6) Municipal Court Administrative Judge Robert S.Blasi, 7) Traffic Court Administrative Judge Bernice DeAngelis, and8) State Court Administrator Nancy Sobolevitch.

The Board meets regularly to consider, deliberate upon, andcoordinate responses to broad management issues affecting allthe FJD Courts. In addition, the AGB reviews data and entertainsrecommendations presented to initiate new projects to improveservice delivery, including access to justice. This cross-court,District-wide arrangement facilitates collegiality and fosterscommunication among the component Courts and divisions of theDistrict.



Alex BonavitacolaPresident Judge, Court of Common PleasChair, Administrative Governing Board

President Judge Alex Bonavitacola is a graduate of Temple University and Temple University School of Law(from which he earned his J.D. and LL.M. degrees). Judge Bonavitacola was elected Judge of the PhiladelphiaCourt of Common Pleas in 1973, retained in 1983 and 1993. He has served in the Trial Division, the FamilyCourt Division and the Orphans’ Court Division. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania appointed him Adminis-trative Judge of the Trial Division of the First Judicial District July 1, 1992, until December 1995, when he wasunanimously elected by his colleagues as President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County.

He is Past President of the Pennsylvania Conference of State Trial Judges and served as Chairman of theEducation Committee for three years.

During his tenure as Administrative Judge of the Trial Division, President Judge Bonavitacola implemented a novel and comprehensive civilcase inventory reduction strategy (Day Backward/Day Forward Programs), which has received national recognition for the effective reduction ofcase backlog within the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County.

In late March, 1996, by order of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, President Judge Bonavitacola was appointed Chairman of the GoverningBoard of the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania. This Board is responsible for the day-to-day governance of Philadelphia’s Common Pleas,Municipal and Traffic Courts.

Alan K. SilbersteinPresident Judge, Municipal Court

Honorable Alan K. Silberstein has held the position of President Judge of Philadelphia Municipal Court sinceApril 1998. Prior to the immediately preceding two-year period when President Judge Silberstein occupied thesame office as Acting President Judge, he presided from the Municipal Bench for ten years, beginning his longcareer as a jurist in January 1976. In addition to his more than 20 years on the bench, President Judge Silbersteinwas Special Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Transportation, and a partner on the Herman,Bayer and Silberstein law firm. He began his practice as a sole practitioner in 1964.

Rounding out his professional life, the President Judge has maintained his commitment to the communitythrough his dedication to the Northeast Community Center for Mental Health/Mental Retardation, acting atvarious times as Vice-President of the Board of Directors (current), President of the Board of Directors, and as a

Member of the Board of Directors since November 1974. In addition he is a former member of the Board of Directors of the National HemophiliaFoundation and an active member of the National Conference of Metropolitan Courts; the American Judge’s Association; the American TrialLawyers’ Association; the Temple University Law Alumni Association; the Philadelphia and Pennsylvania Bar Associations; the B’nai Brith —Justice Lodge; the Pannonia Beneficial Association; the Criminal Justice Coordinating Commission; the Commission on Judicial Selection andRetention; the Pennsylvania Bar Institute as a Lecturer on Eminent Domain; and the Advisory Committee of the Jenkins Memorial Law Library.

Frank J. LittlePresident Judge, Traffic Court

President Judge Little took office on January 8, 1998. He began his judicial career December 21, 1989,serving as Educational Judge beginning in 1993 and Emergency Judge from 1997. A dedicated PublicOfficial of Philadelphia, he presided as the Director of Archives 1985-1990, headed Warrant Depart-ments at Traffic Court and conducted investigations at Municipal Court in Private Criminal Complaints.He was proprietor and C.E.O. of a Philadelphia based Contracting Company from 1965 to 1975. He is agraduate of Wilson Law College, Minor Judiciary Law Degree, Philadelphia Police Academy and thePennsylvania Supreme Court Constable Program. Recipient of numerous community and press awards,Judge Little serves on the Boards of the Community Mental Health and Retardation Center. He isPresident of the Olney Betterment Alliance, Secretary of Lions International, Life Member of The

Emerald Society and Board Member of the Korean-American Friendship Society.


Paul P. PanepintoAdministrative Judge, Family Division

Administrative Judge Paul P. Panepinto attended Villanova University and received his B.A. in Political Sciencein 1971, and M.A. in Political Science in 1979; he received his J.D. in 1976 from Widener University School ofLaw. Before being appointed to the bench of the Court of Common Pleas in June 1990, and elected in his ownright in 1991, Judge Panepinto served in the Family Court Division as a Probation Officer, Intake UnitAttorney, and as a Juvenile Master. A member of numerous professional associations, Judge Panepinto servesas a Board Member of the Alumni Association of the Widener University School of Law, and was presented theWidener University School of Law Outstanding Alumni of the Year Award in October, 1994.

In April 1996, Judge Panepinto was appointed by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to serve in his currentposition as Administrative Judge of the Family Court Division. Also, in 1996, Judge Panepinto was appointed

by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to the Domestic Relations Procedural Rules Committee and appointed by Governor Thomas J. Ridge tothe Juvenile Court Judges’ Commission of Pennsylvania. In 1997, Judge Panepinto was appointed by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania tothe Pennsylvania Futures Commission on Justice in the 21st Century and appointed Chairman for Community Resources Committee by theNational Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. Judge Panepinto is a member of the Roxborough Lodge Order of Sons of Italy andserves as a member of the Mayor’s Cabinet for Children and Youth, as well as numerous other community groups and organizations.

Petrese B. TuckerAdministrative Judge, Orphans’ Court

Appointed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court as Administrative Judge of the Orphans’ Court Division of theCourt of Common Pleas in April 1996, the Honorable Petrese B. Tucker originally assumed office April 6, 1987, andwas subsequently elected to a ten year term in 1989. During her tenure in the Common Pleas Court, she has alsoserved in the Juvenile Court Branch of the Family Division and the Criminal and Civil Sections of the Trial Division.

Before her appointment to the Bench, Judge Tucker was Assistant Chief of the Rape Unit and Assistant Chief ofthe Child Abuse Unit of the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office. In addition, her prior work experience includespositions as Senior Trial Attorney for the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), andAdjunct Professorships at the Great Lakes College Association and Trial Advocacy Courses at Temple UniversitySchool of Law. Judge Tucker is a Member of the Barristers Association of Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania Confer-

ence of State Trial Judges, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, and the Judicial Council of the National Bar Association. As amember of the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, National, and American Bar Associations, Judge Tucker has chaired and worked on numerous committees.She has received many meritorious distinguished service awards for her significant contributions to the community.

John W. HerronAdministrative Judge, Trial Division

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania designated Judge Herron as Administrative Judge of the TrialDivision in January of 1996. Judge Herron was previously elected to the Court of Common Pleas inNovember 1986 and re-elected for a second ten year term in November 1997. He has served in theCriminal Division in the List Room Program and the Major Jury Program and thereafter was assignedto the Civil Division where he served as the Motion Court judge and one of the original team leadersin the Major Jury Day Backward Program.

Prior to his judicial service, Judge Herron practiced law for 18 years as a lawyer in private prac-tice, as an Assistant District Attorney and subsequently Deputy District Attorney, and also as ChiefDisciplinary Counsel for the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court. During his tenure as a judge,

he has served on numerous committees and chaired the Accountability Committee as well as the Civil Management Committee. Inaddition to his frequent appearances as a lecturer and panelist in various continuing legal education programs, he has for severalyears taught courses in law school in both Professional Responsibility and Trial Advocacy.



Robert S. BlasiAdministrative Judge, Municipal Court

The Honorable Robert S. Blasi was appointed by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to his current leadershipposition as Administrative Judge of the Philadelphia Municipal Court in October, 1997. He is concurrentlyqualified to preside as a Common Pleas Court Judge for Civil Appeals from Municipal Court decisions, havingbeen vested with that power through appointment by the Common Pleas Court President Judge AlexBonavitacola. Having been originally appointed as a Municipal Court Judge in January 1992, AdministrativeJudge Blasi was reelected to the bench in January 1998. The Administrative Judge’s background includespositions with an engineering firm; Board Member, Vice Chairman, and Acting Chairman of the PhiladelphiaZoning Board of Adjustment; and as a sole practitioner.

Judge Blasi adds dimension to his career as a lawyer and jurist through professional associations includinghis membership with the Philadelphia Bar Association and contributions to that institution though his work with the Real Property Committee,the Senior Citizens Judicare Project, the Lawyer Referral Service, and the Fee Disputes Committee. He is also a member of the Lawyer Club ofPhiladelphia, sits on the Board of Governors of the Justinian Society; and acts as the Director of the Widener University School of Law AlumniAssociation.

Judge Blasi’s commitment to the community is reflected in his support of the Sons of Italy No. 2217 Greater Roxborough Lodge, where hehas served as the President, Vice President, and Trustee. In addition, he has experience as the Past Director of the Rosary Federal CreditUnion, a 4th Degree Member of the Knights of Colombus, a past member of the Pennsylvania Commission for Social Justice, Governor Casey’sappointee to the Advisory Council on Drug and Alcohol Abuse, a Guest Lecturer at Holy Family College, and a member of the PhiladelphiaFederal Credit Union Loan Review Committee. Finally, Administrative Judge Blasi has received numerous awards for his dedication and publicservice from the Sons of Italy, Widener University School of Law, the 21st Ward Veterans’ Organizations, and the Sons of Italy in America.

Nancy M. SobolevitchCourt Administrator of Pennsylvania

Nancy M. Sobolevitch was appointed State Court Administrator of Pennsylvania on March 31, 1986. Priorto beginning her service as State Court Administrator, Ms. Sobolevitch held positions that included a postingas Deputy Director of the Governors’s Energy Council of Pennsylvania, and an assignment as ExecutiveAssistant to the Speaker, in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives.

Augmenting her valuable previous experiences, and, along with myriad achievements during her career asState Court Administrator, Ms. Sobolevitch has maintained professional associations as a member andImmediate Past President of the Conference Of State Court Administrators (COSCA); Board of the NationalCenter for State Courts; Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency; Pennsylvania Association ofCourt Management (PACM); COSCA Committee on Court Technology; National Association of Women

Judges; American Judges Association; Chairperson, COSCA Committee on State-Federal Issues;Secretary, Judicial Council of Pennsylvania;Chair of the Budget Committee, Judicial Council of Pennsylvania; and National Center for State Courts Governance and NominationsCommittee.

Bernice A. DeAngelisAdministrative Judge, Traffic Court

The Honorable Bernice Ann DeAngelis was appointed by Supreme Court of Pennsylvania as Adminis-trative Judge of the Philadelphia Traffic Court in May 1996. She began her career on the Traffic CourtBench after winning a 1991 City-wide election to that post, assuming office in January 1992.

Prior to her election, Administrative Judge DeAngelis was employed in a State Senatorial DistrictOffice for almost 15 years, providing valuable assistance to a Senator who served as Majority/Minor-ity Chairman of the Transportation Committee, specializing in constituent services relative to theDepartment of Motor Vehicles. She is an Associate Member of the American Bar Association, and aMember of the Democratic Women of Philadelphia. Relying on her rich Polish heritage and deep tieswith the Fairmount community, Judge DeAngelis has devoted much time and energy to the betterment

of Philadelphia. She has received numerous accolades for her dedication and hard work benefitting the City and its citizens,enhancing public safety, and improving the quality of life for the public.

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

First Judicial District Organization ............................................ 29Office of Court Administrator Organization................................ 31Statistics................................................................................. 38

IN THIS SECTION

Municipal Court


Paul P. PanepintoAdmin. Judge

Family Division

Traffic Court

Alex BonavitacolaPresident Judge

Commom Pleas CourtChair, AGB

Alan K. SilbersteinPresident JudgeMunicipal CourtVice Chair, AGB

Frank LittlePresident Judge

Traffic Court

Bernice DeAngelisAdmin. JudgeTraffic Court

Robert S. BlasiAdmin. Judge

Municipal Court

Petrese B. TuckerAdmin. Judge

Orphans Division

John W. HerronAdmin. JudgeTrial Division

Secretary, AGB

Nancy M. SobolevitchState Court

Administrator

Court of Common Pleas

ADMINISTRATIVE GOVERNING BOARDRespective President Judges and Administrative Judges

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

Organization

28


Organization

OVERVIEW

The First Judicial District of Pennsylvania(FJD) was initially established in 1791 asone of an original five state court jurisdic-tions in Pennsylvania. Today, on theverge of the millennium, FJD judges andemployees exemplify leadership in theircommitment to providing equal justicebefore the law. The FJD is one of sixtydynamic and progressive judicial districtsin the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

The organizational structure of the FirstJudicial District of Pennsylvania isfounded on the three major Courts thatcomprise it: 1) the Court of CommonPleas; 2) the Philadelphia MunicipalCourt; and 3) the Philadelphia TrafficCourt.

The Common Pleas Court, a Court ofgeneral jurisdiction, is subdivided intothree divisions: 1) the Trial Division withCivil and Criminal Sections; 2) the FamilyDivision with constituent DomesticRelations and Family Branches; and 3) theOrphans’ Court Division.

The Philadelphia Municipal Court is alimited jurisdiction special Court of recordthat is further delineated into Civil andCriminal Sections that parallel and arelinked to their counterpart divisionalcomponents in the Trial Division ofCommon Pleas Court through appellateprocesses and the criminal arraignmentand preliminary hearing procedures.

The Philadelphia Traffic Court is aspecial Court with jurisdiction overviolations of the Pennsylvania MotorVehicle Code.

MANAGEMENT

The top echelon of FJD management iscomposed of Court leaders on the nine-member Administrative Governing Board(AGB) that was created by the Pennsylva-nia Supreme Court in 1996. As describedpreviously, the President Judges of the

three major courts and the administrativejudges of those courts and their subdivi-sions, along with the State CourtAdministrator constitute the membershipof the AGB.

In addition to the formation of theAGB, the Office of the Court Administra-tor of the First Judicial District ofPennsylvania was also established by thePennsylvania Supreme Court on April 1,1996. The Court Administrator, Joseph J.DiPrimio, Esquire, was appointed to thatposition in August, 1996. Reportingdirectly to the AGB, Mr. DiPrimio over-sees an office with large responsibilitycenters with bearing across the FJD.

OPERATIONAL LINKAGES

Aside from the managerial links estab-lished through the AGB structure andaugmented by the Office of the CourtAdministrator, several operational tiesconnect the three Courts. Criminal casearraignment and preliminary hearingprocesses conducted in Municipal Courtlead to trial proceedings in the CommonPleas Court Trial Division CriminalSection. Common Pleas Court alsoentertains appeals arising from MunicipalCourt dispositions and Traffic Courtdecisions. When juvenile complainantsare involved, felony preliminary hearingsand misdemeanor trials are speciallyadministered in the Juvenile Branchfacility at 1801 Vine Street before FamilyCourt Division judges. Further, theFamily Division Domestic RelationsBranch of the Common Pleas Court andthe Municipal Court are joined throughcooperative round-the-clock efforts toprovide protection from abuse.

The district-wide influence of units inthe Common Pleas Court President Judge’sOffice, and that of the Court Administra-tor, add to a network of connectionsspanning the FJD.

Administrative Governing BoardRespective President Judges and AdministrativeJudges


David C. LawrenceChief Deputy Court Administrator

George HuttonDirector Data Processing

Matthew F. LewandowskiDirector Human Resources

Edward W. RementerDirector Administrative Services

Anthony FerraraDirector Building Facilities

Director Fiscal Management AnalysisProgram Evaluation

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR Organization

30


OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR

ORGANIZATION

The Office of the Court Administrator of theFirst Judicial District of Pennsylvania wasestablished by the Pennsylvania SupremeCourt on April 1, 1996. Joseph J. DiPrimio,Esquire was appointed to that position inAugust 1996, and reports directly to thecore leadership contingent of the FirstJudicial District — the AdministrativeGoverning Board (AGB). In turn, the ChiefDeputy Court Administrator, David C.Lawrence, reports to Mr. DiPrimio. TheCourt Administrator’s office is organizedinto large responsibility centers eachheaded by a Deputy Court Administrator orDirector.

PURPOSE

As chief ministerial agent for the FJD, theCourt Administrator is charged withimplementing initiatives and programsresponsive to the management needs of theAGB, while affirmatively proceeding asan executive with a vision toward thefuture.

Toward that end, the Court Administra-tor has adopted a strong leadership rolethat reflects a total quality managementapproach. In this instance, the CourtAdministrator facilitates periodic meetingsbetween staff with like interests andfunctions to discuss solutions to problemsand devise well-organized, innovativeimprovements to the District’s workingenvironment and service delivery systems.

RESPONSIBILITIES

Given that the Administrator’s purviewextends to programs and services spanningthe Courts and Divisions of the District,and, following from the direct link to theAGB, this office has the highest level ofresponsibility among non-judicial leader-ship positions. The numerous

achievements attained here during thebiennium will have far reaching, long termeffects on the efficient administration ofjustice in the First Judicial District. TheOffice of the Court Administrator isresponsible for all central services of theFirst Judicial District including dataprocessing technology, telecommunica-tions, human resources management, fiscalconcerns, facilities management, andmanagement analysis and evaluationservices.

ACHIEVEMENTS

The 1996-1997 biennium featured dozensof accomplishments and new develop-ments initiated through the auspices of theCourt Administrator’s office. Some ofthese are spotlighted below.

Internet - In 1997, the First JudicialDistrict announced that its Internetwebsite was completed and online.Although currently consisting of staticdata describing District operations, sitefeatures are rich in information anddynamic in terms of navigation andlinkage. Future avenues will lead to built-in website connectivity to selected courtdatabases providing direct access forattorneys, governmental agencies and thepublic.

Technological Initiatives - The DataProcessing/MIS Department is currentlyworking on the following system upgradesand enhancements to the First JudicialDistrict computing and communicationsenvironment:

• A pilot imaging project will provideonline access through a web browser toUniform Commercial Code (UCC)filings and divorce decrees.

• An email gateway to the City ofPhiladelphia is planned to allow courtnetwork users to exchange e-mail withCity agencies with Internet e-mail tocourt employees.

David C. LawrenceChief DeputyCourt Administrator

The numerousachievementsattained here

during thebiennium will

have farreaching, longterm effects on

the efficientadministration of

justice in theFirst Judicial

District.

Joseph J. DiPrimio, Esq.Court Administrator


FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR

• Internet access through the City ofPhiladelphia is being tested and shouldbe available to authorized personnel in1998.

• Human Resources will continue expan-sion of the “Remote Time andAttendance” reporting system.

• Implementation of the Adult Probationpilot case tracking project is expectedalong with expansion of the Pretrialonline interview application.

• Leaders are developing an onlinearchiving system for notes of testimonyalong with new systems for trackingCourt Reporter and Interpreter assign-ments and notes of testimony.

• The Court network at 1801 Vine Streetwill undergo major improvements to pushnew Juvenile Probation case manage-ment initiatives.

• Bids are being reviewed to provideattorneys, government agencies and thepublic access topublic civil recordsthrough an InternetConnectivity Project.Issues of securitystill remain but theFirst Judicial Districtwill provide Internetaccess to its civildata through theInternet during 1998.Future trends in thisarea include elec-tronic filing.

Streamlined Fiscal Operations:Through computer technology, the FiscalUnit has implemented several automatedreport processes which have allowed forstreamlined operations, online budgetmanagement reports, and budget andexpenditure modeling for court administra-tion.

In-House Training: The Human Re-sources Department has developed andpresented a series of in-house trainingprograms for the employees of the FirstJudicial District. Training will continue tobe developed to provide new and innova-tive programs. The series included threeimportant topics: 1) prevention of sexualharassment; 2) Windows and Word Perfectcomputer upgrades; and 3) Stress Manage-ment and other personal improvementcourses. The aim is to enable Districtemployees to reach their full potential asindividuals and as contributing membersof the FJD workforce. The eventual goalis to help employees to be the bestinformed, most courteous employees inthe State Court System.

Space and Facilities Upgrades: In thepast two years, major renovation projectsincluded construction of the City HallCivil Case Management ConferenceCenter, the Dispute Resolution Center, theBar Conference Center, and new offices for

Court Data Processing,and the Court FiscalOffice. The FamilyCourt building housingthe Juvenile Branchoperations underwentextensive refurbish-ment. Ongoing projectsinclude new offices forHuman Resources and aMunicipal Court SeniorJudges Complex.

Relocations from leased office space to Cityowned office space save the Court, Cityand citizens of Philadelphia approximately$290,000 annually.

Evaluative Services Projects: In thepast few years Senior Staff Advisors to theCourt Administrator’s Office helpedeffectuate organizational improvementssuch as:

The 1996-1997 bienniumfeatured dozens of

accomplishments andnew developments initiatedthrough the auspices of the

Court Administrator’s Office.

Relocations fromleased officespace to Cityowned office

space save theCourt, City and

citizens ofPhiladelphia

approximately$290,000annually.



• electronic budget preparation andsubmission;

• technology needs assessment andequipment acquisition;

• online time and attendance system;

• the review and restructure of the civilfee system;

• electronic imaging of appropriate courtrecords;

• development and implementation of thePhiladelphia Courts Internet site;

• the creation of The Courterly, the FJD’sfirst district-wide newsletter; and

• publication, for the first time in thehistory of the District, a comprehensivereport describing all the constituentCourts and Divisions of the FirstJudicial District — the Special 1996-1997Biennial Report in which this textappears.

In addition, the advisors have been or areotherwise presently involved with evalua-tive projects at Traffic Court; with theCourt Reporters/Interpreters; with theJuvenile Branch of Family Court; evaluat-ing the need for a new electronic criminalcase management program and jurymanagement system; expanding theCourt’s Internet connectivity to includelive interaction with the civil databaseand, in cooperation with the Prothonotary,future electronic filing with electroniccommerce.

DEPARTMENTS

Data Processing And Technology: Withthe support and encouragement of judicialleaders, administrators of the First JudicialDistrict of Pennsylvania have adopted anaggressive approach to providing im-proved technological management andoperational tools to the judiciary, adminis-

tration and staff — with broad access byother governmental agencies, privateorganizations and the public. The strategyis framed by the structured integration ofthe mainframe platforms with desktopPC’s operating over a wide area networkwith Internet communications capability.While the primary focus is to providetechnology and communications within theFirst Judicial District, the leadership ismindful that the District is an integral partof larger judicial and governmentalcommunities; and, therefore, must main-tain communications with state and federalagencies as well as private, judicial, legaland educational groups.

Managed by George Hutton, the FirstJudicial District of Pennsylvania DataProcessing/MIS Department includes astaff of approximately 50 supervisors,programmers, systems experts supervisors,technicians and clerical employees. DataProcessing/MIS operates three maincomputer centers driving Court automa-tion. An IBM ES9000 located in theCriminal Justice Center supports the CivilDivision of Municipal Court, the Criminaloperations of Common Pleas and Munici-pal Courts, Adult Probation and Parole,the Juvenile Branch of Family Division,Jury Selection, and Orphans Court. AnIBM ES9000 running the software applica-tion “PARENTS” is an importantcomponent of the very successful ChildSupport collections programs and otheractivities at the Domestic RelationsBranch of the Family Division of CommonPleas Court at 34 South 11th Street.Finally, an IBM RISC System/6000operating the “BANNER for Courts”software package bolsters continuallyimproving case management systems andinventory programs of the Civil Divisionof Common Pleas Court at City Hall.

“The aim [of thetraining

programs] is toenable Districtemployees to

reach their fullpotential as

individuals andas contributingmembers of the

FJD workforce.”



Additionally, the First Judicial District iscompleting installation and upgrades to thenetworked personal computer system.Network installation began in an effort toprovide office automation hardware andsoftware to judicial chambers, courtroomsand administrative offices. Hardware andsoftware standards arereviewed and revisedtwice a year to keepcurrent with the everchanging demands foradditional desktopprocessing power. Thenetwork currently has 50servers and approxi-mately 2,400 personalcomputers distributedover 13 locations. Allsites are linked over T1circuits through CityNet,the City of Philadelphia’shigh speed wide areanetwork.

The FJD Internet siteand operation is managedby Internet AdministratorDonald A. Varley Jr. whois responsible formaintaining and advanc-ing the technicalinfrastructure behind theFirst Judicial District’sInternet environment. Inconjunction with Court leaders, he workswith a variety of constantly changingleading edge technologies. While monitor-ing technical changes and advances in theInternet environment, stewardship of thesite requires ongoing design of elements toenhance navigation, boost traffic andenrich content. The Internet Administratorcollaborates with the MIS departmentregarding Internet configuration issues.

Fiscal Administration: The CourtBudget and Fiscal Office, formerly overseenby William Bell, is responsible for FirstJudicial District budget preparation,submission and management. Also, fiscaladministration conducts all aspects ofpayment processing for certain contractual

services includingcompensation fortranscription services ofmore than 100 courtreporters, interpreterservices, and payment ofmillions of dollars tohundreds of Courtappointed privateattorneys providing legalcounsel to thousandsindigent defendants peryear. In this manner,employees of the FiscalOffice bolster theseservices that are basicfoundations for Accessto Justice. In addition,the Fiscal Unit is respon-sible for management offinancial grants for alldivisions of the FirstJudicial District — exceptChild Support — includ-ing structuring accountsand assuring the properaccounting of grant

transactions. Finally, during the biennium,the Fiscal Unit processed the First JudicialDistrict payroll including all record keepingand check distribution to a considerablepopulation of more than 2,300 employees.

Human Resources Management:Management of personnel resources withinthe First Judicial District of Pennsylvania isthe responsibility of the Human ResourcesDepartment directed by Matthew F.

Wanamaker Building



Lewandowski. This unit maintains person-nel records and employment histories foremployees of the District. In addition totheir responsibility for the proper adminis-tration of personnel transactions — fromrecruiting, testing and hiring to separation— the unit is dutiful in the uniform applica-tion of official personnel regulations andpolicies within the FJD.

A very important aspect of the workconducted by Human Resources is em-ployee training and education. Theprograms coordinated here provide avariety of training options including in-service programs and training conductedby the City of Philadelphia, as well aseducational programs offered throughcolleges and universities and professionalassociations. Additionally, the HumanResources Unit coordinates the employeeperformance appraisal system and admin-isters the compensation and benefitprogram for District employees.

Concerning labor relations, HR manage-ment and staff serve to adviseadministrators throughout the FJD regard-ing personnel activities. They alsooversee the grievance process and work toensure compliance with appropriatefederal, state and local employment lawsand regulations including the FamilyMedical Leave Act (FLMA) and theAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA).The Human Resources Department hasmaintained a position at the forefront ofcompliance efforts serving to broadenaccessibility.

In an effort to streamline personneloperations throughout the District and itsmany locations, the Human ResourcesUnit along with Data Processing/MISbegan implementing ABRA, an onlinetime and attendance system. This systempermits time and attendance recording atremote locations in the District and

provides for real time updating of thecentral personnel database. Once imple-mentation of the system is complete,information will be immediately availableto District administrators.

In compliance with Federal Laws, and,as one component of a diverse educationaleffort, the District Human ResourcesDepartment has developed a SexualHarassment Prevention Program. Comple-tion of this program is mandatory forevery full and part-time, permanent andtemporary employee. To date over 2,000employees have benefitted from thiscourse. The Sexual Harassment Preven-tion training program was developed attwo levels. The first, for the education ofManagers and Supervisors includes areview of the laws and procedural infor-mation regarding the responsibilitiesplaced upon managers when sexualharassment is alleged. The second level,directed to all staff, clearly sets forth thecriteria for identifying sexual harassmentand the internal procedures available forthe registration of a complaint. Newemployees are scheduled for SexualHarassment Prevention Training within amonth of their starting date.

Concerning technological advances, theHuman Resources Department, in conjunc-tion with the office of Managed InformationSystems, conducted “Training for Trainers”sessions. The newly recruited instructorssubsequently conducted other sessionsand will provide a continuing resource forthe future as the District continues to “rollout” participation in the use of WordPerfect 6.1 for Windows District-wide. Thisprogram has been very successful fromseveral standpoints. First, individuals whowere selected to be trainers are qualifiedvolunteers whose selection was based inpart on their knowledge and availability. Inaddition, peer training allowed the traineesto ask their own colleagues questions in a



friendly setting. Peer trainers were, in mostcases, familiar with the demands placed onthe trainee and the nature of the students’work — enabling them to gear the coursesto meet specific needs.

Other initiatives include: Stress Man-agement courses attended by 1,000 courtemployees at both supervisory and stafflevels; English usage and grammar classespresented for a group of 20 employees as atest project; and in the interest of safety,members of the maintenance departmentand messenger staff received training inBack Injury Prevention.

General Administrative Support: Underthe direction of Edward Rementer, theAdministrative Services unit provides avariety of services throughout the FirstJudicial District. One of the primary areasof concentration for Administrative Ser-vices is maintenance and facilitymanagement. With many court locationsthroughout central Philadelphia, coordina-tion of maintenance, renovation andconstruction projects, and cleaningservices is a complicated task.

Administrative Services also providesplanning, requisition processing, andliaison services with City CommunicationsDepartment for the telecommunicationsrequirements of the Court. In addition tothe installation and maintenance of tele-phone equipment, Administrative Servicescoordinated installation of a comprehensiveAutomated Voice Response (AVR) systemfor the district. The AVR features a greetingand information section (English andSpanish), a call director, and a dial-outsystem to judges and administrators foremergency court information.

Under Administrative Services, profes-sional offset printing and publishingservices are channeled through the CourtPrint Shop. The Microfilm Unit providescomplete filming, developing and comput-erized access for court records.

Management Analysis and ProgramEvaluation: The Court Administrator’sOffice supports the operations of the FirstJudicial District by providing a core staffof Senior Staff Advisors with specificprogram expertise who are responsible formanagement analysis functions andprogram evaluation activities. This staffcoordinates projects to evaluate andimprove the organizational design andoperational process of all Court functions.

View of City Hall tower looking northeast.



Statistics

FY96 First Judicial DistrictBudget Appropriation

$69,729,112 Court of Common Pleas

$5,215,764 Traffic Court

$9,848,520 Municipal Court

$15,177,368 Office of theCourt Administrator

FY96 Court of Common PleasBudget Appropriation

$55,187,635 Personnel

$1,339,000 Supplies &Equipment

$13,202,477 Purchase ofServices

FY96 Municipal CourtBudget Appropriation


$136,510 Supplies &Equipment


FY97 First Judicial DistrictBudget Appropriation

$69,729,112 Court of Common Pleas

$5,215,764 Traffic Court

$9,848,520 Municipal Court

$15,177,368 Office of theCourt Administrator

FY97 Court of Common PleasBudget Appropriation


$1,275,550 Supplies &Equipment


FY97 Municipal CourtBudget Appropriation






Statistics

FY96 Traffic CourtBudget Appropriation




FY96 Office of the Court AdministratorBudget Appropriation




FY97 Traffic CourtBudget Appropriation




FY97 Office of the Court AdministratorBudget Appropriation




COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

Court of Common Pleas Organization ......................................... 41Office of the President Judge ................................................... 43Prothonotary Statistics ............................................................. 48

IN THIS SECTION

Juvenile

Domestic Relations

Honorable Paul P. PanepintoAdministrative JudgeFamily Court Division

Honorable John W. HerronAdministrative Judge

Trial Division

Civil Operations

Honorable Petrese B. TuckerAdministrative Judge

Orphans' Court Division

Criminal Operations

Jury Selection

Honorable Alex BonavitacolaPresident Judge


Organization

40


Organization

OVERVIEW

The Courts of Common Pleas arePennsylvania’s courts of general trialjurisdiction. They have existed sincethe colonial charter of Pennsylvania, andare incorporated in the PennsylvaniaConstitution of 1776. The Court ofCommon Pleas of Philadelphia County iscomprised of three divisions, each ofwhich is administered by an Administra-tive Judge appointed by the SupremeCourt. The divisions and their corre-sponding compliment of judges are theTrial Division — 67, the Family CourtDivision — 20, and the Orphans’ CourtDivision — 3.

The current structure of the Philadel-phia Court of Common Pleas wasestablished by a 1968 amendment to theConstitution of 1874. By this amendment,the Court was organized into Divisions:the Trial Division handles criminal andcivil cases; the Orphan’s Court Divisionis responsible for estate and probatematters; and the Family Division hasjurisdiction in domestic relations, adop-tions, and juvenile cases.

The Court of Common Pleas is headedby the President Judge. The bienniumPresident Judge, Alex Bonavitacola, isalso chairperson of the AdministrativeGoverning Board, the upper-most level ofthe management structure of the FirstJudicial District.

The Common Pleas Court employsmore than 2,150 people, more than anyother court of the District. The CommonPleas judiciary, at 90 strong, accounts formost (more than 70%) of all the judge-ships in the FJD. During the 1996-1997Biennial Report period employees re-ceived and processed in excess of280,000 new filings. The vast andcomprehensive Common Pleas Courtjurisdiction includes: Domestic Relationscases — Divorce, Custody, Child andSpousal Support, and Protection fromAbuse; Juvenile cases — Delinquency,Dependency, and Adoptions; Criminalcases — homicide and felony trials,appeals from Municipal Court, PostConviction Relief Act (PCRA) collateralappeals, probation violations, and otherscases arising from criminal prosecution;all manner of Civil proceedings whereamounts in question exceed $10,000; andOrphans’ Court estate and probate cases.Most of the business of the FJD isconducted in the Court of Common Pleas.

Criminal Justice CenterFilbert Street entrance.

Janet F. DowdsDirector

Court Reporter Services

Joseph DiGuglielmoDirector

Procurement

Honorable Alex BonavitacolaPresident Judge

James M. ClarkLaw Librarian

Joseph H. EversProthonotary

Bonnie O'KaneDeputy Prothonotary

Stanley ChmielewskiDeputy Prothonotary

Court MessengerServices

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT Organization

42


OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT JUDGE

PURPOSE

The massive Court of Common Pleas of theFirst Judicial District is supervised by aPresident Judge who is elected for a five-year term by the judges of that Court.

RESPONSIBILITIES

The President Judge wields considerableauthority with extensive, myriad, anddiverse responsibilities. As the leader ofthe largest court in the First JudicialDistrict (FJD) and the Commonwealth, thePresident Judge of the Court of CommonPleas is charged with extraordinary andcomprehensive duties and obligations.The biennium President Judge, AlexBonavitacola, is also chair of the FJDAdministrative Governing Board, theDistrict’s core management leadershipgroup. With this dual role, President JudgeBonavitacola exemplifies the highestcaliber of leadership, at the highest level, infulfilling the description of PresidentJudges contained in the 200-year-oldJudicial Reorganization Act of 1791:

“...a person of knowledge, integrity,skilled in the laws, shall be...the Presidentand Judge of the courts of CommonPleas.”

As noted previously in the HistoricalPerspective, the establishment of theoriginal five judicial districts of theCommonwealth, including the FJD, waslargely defined by the provision for, andthe appointment of, five President Judges.

The responsibilities of the Office of thePresident Judge include the assignment ofjudges, encompassing the posting of newjudges to the various divisions of thecourt; the placement of Senior Judges tohelp dispose of Philadelphia County’scase-inventory; and the appointment ofout-of-county judges to assist in conflictcases. Also, the President Judge is

responsible for space allocation within theCourt of Common Pleas and assignment ofjudicial chambers. Importantly, the officeimplements local rules and initiatesadministrative orders, directives, generalcourt regulations, and legislativeenactments. There are five major servicecenters under the aegis of the PresidentJudge: 1) the Office of the Prothonotary; 2)the Court’s Law Library; 3) Court ReportingServices; 4) Court Messenger Services;and 5) the First Judicial District’sProcurement Unit.

The Office of the President Judgeassigns a Common Pleas Court emergencyjudge each week who is available duringoff-court hours to dispose of emergencymatters; and during elections, provides forjudicial staffing of Election Court, withnumerous satellite locations throughoutthe city, to enable voters to exercise theirconstitutional right to vote. Through ahearing officer, the Office of the PresidentJudge entertains all petitions that seek tomodify judgments issued against criminaldefendants, and their sureties, whendefendants violate the terms of their bailand fail to appear for court hearings; andmaintains a Disbarment Docket of localattorneys placed on inactive status,suspended or disbarred by the SupremeCourt. Finally, the Office of the PresidentJudge, through the Coordinator of MentalHealth, supervises Court appointed MentalHealth Review Officers who, pursuant tothe amended Mental Health Procedures Actof 1976, hold hearings on behalf of theCourt in four hospitals throughout theCity, and at Norristown State Hospital.These regular court events further ensureaccess to justice for mental health patients,their families, counsel, treatment providers,and others. The Mental Health ReviewOfficers conduct approximately 2,500informal conferences and hearings eachyear.

Alex BonavitacolaPresident Judge


COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT JUDGE

ACHIEVEMENTS

Under the leadership of President JudgeBonavitacola, many exciting andnoteworthy improvements have taken placewithin the Philadelphia Court of CommonPleas during the 1996-1997 biennium,including the creation of an AttorneyDisbarment Docket that removes inactiveor disbarred attorneys from the Court-appointed attorney panel and from cases inwhich their appearance was entered. Otherinitiatives included the elimination of a BailForfeiture backlog, and the establishmentof new policies and procedures governingthe Mental Health Program, designed tobetter protect the rights and access of thecitizens of Philadelphia, while fullycomplying with the Commonwealth’sMental Health Procedures Act.

Moreover, through the guidance of theOffice of the President Judge,implementation of an automated courtinformation line (215-686-7000) expandsaccess to the public. Callers gain access togeneral court information, in English orSpanish, and, through a series of menuchoices, they may be connected to officesthat can best answer or resolve thousandsof inquiries. This automated systemcapitalizes upon an existing voice mailsystem at no extra cost, and saves the FirstJudicial District valuable personnel time.More importantly, the information lineprovides twenty-four hour access to thecourt and its various departments.

Notable improvements were also seen onthe Court Reporting front. The CommonPleas Court costs for provision of freecopies of notes of testimony involvingindigent criminal defendants exceeded$1,000,000 in 1996, and surpassed $950,000in 1997. The amounts cited account onlyfor per page payments to Court Reporters,and do not reflect costs for salaries,

facilities, equipment, or supplies andmaterials . Per page sums included costsfor innumerable duplicate transcripts, andmultiple copies of the same transcriptsdespite their having been provided earlier.In late 1997, President Judge Bonavitacola,relying on the findings of an expertmanagement consultant draft report,directed that superfluous copies oftranscripts no longer be provided. Thisdirective dramatically reduced the numberof transcripts generated by the court andlightened the workload of department staff.It has also considerably decreased Courtexpenditures for paper, supplies andpostage. Moreover, the Court ReportingDepartment has modified the recordarchival system and significantly reducedsubstantial storage expenditures that theDistrict continues to incur.

DEPARTMENTS

Court Reporter Services: The Court ofCommon Pleas is a Court of Record. Allcourt proceedings must be transcribed.The Court employs over 100 Official CourtReporters who are supervised by a Directorwith an administrative staff. The Directorof Court Reporting Services, Janet FasyDowds, was appointed in August 1997.Ms. Dowds, has, since her appointment,initiated many improvements to thesystems for provision of the official record.

Official Court Reporters are assigned tocourtrooms to stenographically recordtestimony, arguments or other spokenpresentations heard by judges. Reportersthen provide copies of the transcripts of thoseproceedings to judges, the District Attorney’sOffice, plaintiff or defense attorneys, and tothe Clerk of Quarter Sessions.

The PresidentJudge’sdirective

dramaticallyreduced thenumber oftranscripts

generated by thecourt and

lightened theworkload ofdepartment

staff.



At the behest of the President Judge, astudy of the Official Court Reporters in bothMunicipal and Common Pleas Courts wasconducted by the National Center for StateCourts in conjunction with the National CourtReporters Association during the 1996-1997biennium. The study encompassed a widerange of topics, including reporteraccountability, salaries, the use of per diemreporters, newtechnologies, recordretention, and managementoperations. Acomprehensive DraftReport was issued in 1997.

On the horizon, anexciting technologicaladvancement will save thecourt time and money, andalleviate heavy burdensplaced on judges,attorneys, and theirbriefcases. Minuscript is acomputer softwareenhancement thatgenerates condensedtranscripts allowing eightpages to be printed onboth sides of a single sheetof paper. Arguably, paperusage and costs could bereduced by as much as 88%. Implementationis targeted for 1998. This innovation will alsohave a tremendous effect on the environmentand the production and storage costs of notesof testimony, enabling the District to betterutilize finite resources.

Law Library: The mission of the LawLibrary, supervised by Law Librarian James M.Clark, is to provide support for the legal andgeneral research activities of First JudicialDistrict judges and other personnel. Towardthat end, library workers pursue a full range oftraditional and technologically enhancedinformation delivery strategies designed to

provide timely, accurate, and efficient accessto the sources of law. Located in Room 600,City Hall, and relying on a collection of 40,000volumes, Lexis/Nexis, the Internet, and FirstJudicial District networked resources, the mainlibrary offers access to three distinct andcomprehensive libraries of law, generalreference, and government information. Inaddition, four satellite libraries, each with a

standardized bookcollection, Lexis/Nexis,and network access, aresituated within separatefacilities housingCriminal, Family, DomesticRelations, and ComplexLitigation Civil CourtJudges.

Included amongimportant libraryachievements during1996-97 were theintroduction of Internetaccess into libraryservices, the creationand development of twobranch libraries in theCriminal Justice Centerand Family Court, andthe retrospectiveconversion of over 1,000

book titles into machine-readable cardformat (MARC) that will significantlyenhance implementation of an on-linepublic access catalog of library holdings.The library looks forward to meeting thefollowing goals in 1998: increased Internetaccess; the introduction of CD-ROMtechnology into library services; and thecompletion of an on-line card catalogproject that will ultimately provide FirstJudicial District Judges with desk-topaccess to the library’s catalog.

Included amongnotable libraryachievements

during 1996-97were the

introduction ofInternet access

into libraryservices, thecreation and

development oftwo branch

libraries in theCriminal Justice

Center and FamilyCourt...Law Library - Criminal Justice Center



Procurement Unit: In 1990, thePennsylvania Supreme Court completelyreorganized the administrative structure of thePhiladelphia Courts. As part of thisreorganization, the First Judicial District,working in cooperation with the City ofPhiladelphia and the Administrative Office ofPennsylvania Courts (AOPC), was able to takecontrol of Court procurement functionspreviously administered by the City andCounty of Philadelphia.

Located at 1801 VineStreet, the ProcurementUnit, directed by JosephDiGuglielmo, controlspurchasing of allequipment and supplies,and administers allcontracts for serviceswithin the District.Activities of theProcurement Unit areintended to ensure thatquality goods andservices are expeditiously delivered to judgesand staff at reasonable cost. ProcurementUnit cost saving operational efficiencies reapbenefits across the entire FJD. Cost savingsfund technology enhancements, training, andspace improvements. In 1996-1997,Procurement Unit reserves financed: theacquisition of the Criminal Court ComputerSystem; the new Civil Court CaseManagement System; on-going upgrades andmaintenance of the First Judicial District WideArea Network (WAN); relocations and spacerenovations; and increased trainingopportunities for judiciary and staff.

Office of The Prothonotary: TheProthonotary is as significant in a historicalcontext as it is indispensable in its modern dayrole as chief clerk of the civil Courts of theFJD. Historical references to the title“Prothonotary” hark back to the EcclesiasticalCourt during the Middle Ages and the English

Court of the King’s Bench. It has also beensaid to be the oldest and continuously heldlegal office in the Western hemisphere. In thecontemporary sense, the Prothonotary isrecognized as the clerk who keeps records andthe great seal, issues process, enters judgmentand certifies the record.

The Office of the Prothonotary was createdunder the provisions of Article 9, Section 4, ofthe Constitution of the Commonwealth ofPennsylvania. The duties, responsibilities,

and other provisions ofthe office are set forthunder Title 42, Judiciaryand Judicial Procedure,Section 2737 ofPennsylvaniaConsolidated Statutes.

The Prothonotary ofPhiladelphia is appointedby the judges of the Courtof Common Pleas. In Mayof 1995, Joseph H. Everswas appointed

Prothonotary of Philadelphia. TheProthonotary is assisted by two DeputyProthonotaries, Stanley J. Chmielewski andBonnie O’Kane, as well as a support staff of66 employees.

The Prothonotary is, by law, responsiblefor all the civil business of the Courts. TheProthonotary must maintain the seal of theCourt and has the power and duty toadminister oaths and affirmation and affix andattest the seal of the Court or Courts. Inaddition, the Prothonotary controls processand thereby establishes Court jurisdiction,certifies all pertinent documents and recordsand exemplifies the business of the Court,while entering all civil judgments andsatisfactions of civil judgments. TheProthonotary is an officer of the Court; andhas the authority to “exercise such otherpowers and perform such other duties as maynow or hereafter be vested in or imposed uponthe office by law...”.

The word “Prothonotary” isa combination of the Greek

word “Protos” meaning“first” and the Latin word

“Notarius”, meaning “scribeor clerk”. The most famousProthonotary was the lawyer

Andrew Hamilton.

Joseph H. EversProthonotary



The Office of the Prothonotary receives inexcess of 100,000 original civil filings eachyear and maintains a current inventory inexcess of 500,000 active civil files.

Within the previous two years, the Officeof the Prothonotary has undertakennumerous initiatives:

• Imaging of Uniform Commercial Code(UCC) Filings: The immediate goal of thisproject is the integration of imagingtechnology within UCC procedures. Theaims are to provide superior servicethrough enhanced office facilities andefficient utilization of personnel resources,and to develop funds for reinvestment. Thepreparation and implementation of thissystem is a first in the United States andmay serve as a model for the entire country.

• High Density File Storage System: Theinstallation of an automated high densityfiling system has allowed for the consolida-tion of records in a central location. Thespace gained from this endeavor willprovide for the return of records presently

stored off-site at great expense. Improve-ments are also expected to support moreeffective screening and destruction ofrecords in accordance with record retentionschedules.

• Access to Court Data Via Internet: Withthe support of Court Administration, datawill be available to third parties via theInternet for a fee, expanding access. Withthe leadership of the Prothonotary at theforefront of technological advancement andmodern managerial practices, changecontinues to be predicated on the principlethat productivity and cost benefits arisefrom enhanced staff morale.

The facilities of the Office of the Protho-notary are a source of pride for the FirstJudicial District as evidenced by the manyvisits from interested Court personnelthroughout the country and the world. Theoffice’s dedication inspires employees andthe public to enjoy successes today thatwill likely continue well into the future.



Statistics

1995 1996 1997

Civil Filings* 90,188 96,531 74,435

Judgments Filed** 49,657 60,324 45,670

U.C.C. Filings*** 20,837 23,329 20,221

Mechanics Liens 2,633 2,844 1,488

Appeals/Transfers**** 2,146 1,982 1,529

TOTALS 165,461 185,010 143,343

*Civil Filings represent all types of filings presented in the Civil Commencement Unit.

**Judgment filings include individually filed actions and Judgments filed in Operation of Law, whichincludes Fines and Costs, Restitution, Support and Traffic Court Judgments filed in an automatedprocess by the Agencies.

***U.C.C. filings include UCC1 and UCC3 matters.

****Appeals, Transfers and Removals are transactions that require us to physically move a file toanother court or jurisdiction.

0

50

100

150

200

Th

ousa

nds

Civil Filings*Judgments Filed**

U.C.C. Filings***Mechanics Liens

Appeals/Transfers****TOTALS

1995

1996

1997

Office of the ProthonotaryFilings



Statistics

OFFICE OF THE PROTHONOTARYNEW FILINGS

140

150

160

170

180

190

Th

ou

sa

nd

s

1995 1996 1997

Totals

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

1995 1996 1997

Mechanics Liens

40

45

50

55

60

65

Th

ou

sa

nd

s

1995 1996 1997

Judgments Filed

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Tho

us

an

ds

1995 1996 1997

Civil Filings

20

21

22

23

24

Tho

us

an

ds

1995 1996 1997

U.C.C. Filings

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

1995 1996 1997

Appeals/Transfers

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS TRIAL DIVISION

John W. HerronAdministrative Judge

Trial Division Organization ...................................................... 53Civil Section ........................................................................... 55Civil Section Statistics ............................................................ 61Criminal Section ..................................................................... 63Criminal Section Statistics ...................................................... 70Jury Commission .................................................................... 71

IN THIS SECTION

Letter from the Administrative JudgeThese years have offered myriad opportunities for improving thedelivery of justice in both the Civil and Criminal Divisions of the Courtof Common Pleas. In both areas of the Trial Division, we have soughtto reconfigure the Court, moving from the calendar judge system ofassigning matters to the creation of judicial teams, each with a teamleader and a small number of judges specifically assigned to a certainportion of the inventory of active cases. Many judges have acceptedthese leadership positions at a cost of considerable additionaladministrative responsibility, time and effort for themselves and staff.The Trial Division has been strengthened by the additional delegationof leadership responsibility. The second major focus has been onincreasing case management, especially on the civil side. Casemanagers have been added to the complement of Court personnel andmeet with lawyers in all cases 90 days after filing to impose astructured Case Management Order governing the critical events.

Complementing the program changes in judicial leadership and casemanagement, the Trial Division has made major changes in certainphysical facilities in City Hall to complement the civil delay reductionstrategy. These changes have resulted in abolishing a separate filingarea for motions and consolidating that function within theProthonotary�s office on the second floor. Civil Administration nowoccupies completely restored facilities immediately contiguous to theProthonotary�s Office and both the Motion Court and Discoverycourtrooms have been located nearby, thus establishing all civil filing,processing and disposition of discovery and non-discovery motionswithin one adjacent area in City Hall. In addition, a new Case Managerconference area and Dispute Resolution Center have been establishedon the sixth floor to aid counsel in the case management andsettlement processes. Finally, a lawyer/client meeting area has beenestablished in refurbished Courtroom 225. These excitingdevelopments and additions have paved the way for a completelyrevamped Civil Program.

Honorable Legrome D. DavisSupervising Judge

Criminal Trial Division


Trial Division

Joseph A. CaironeDeputy Court Administrator

Criminal Trial Section

Charles A. Mapp Sr.Deputy Court Administrator

Civil Trial Section

Joseph A. LanzelottiDirector

Active Criminal Records

Frank E. CheckovageDirector

Civil Administartion

John S. IrvineChief Probation Officer

Adult Probation & Parole

Case ManagementConference Center

John J. DayDirector

Courtroom Operations

Dennis A. BrennanManager Discovery

Alfred R. CarloneDirector

Criminal Listings

Donald A. SmithManager

Arbitration Center

Nathaniel A. JohnsonDirector

Pretrial Services

Mary McGovernCourt Administrative OfficerComplex Litigation Center

Michael J. McAllister, Esq.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS TRIAL DIVISIONOrganization

52


TRIAL DIVISION

OVERVIEW

In terms of the number of Judges andemployees, the Trial Division is thelargest subdivision of the Court ofCommon Pleas. Indeed, the Divisionemploys more workers in support of morejudges than any other court or divisionacross the First Judicial District. Sixty-seven judges, or 54% of the total FJDjudiciary, preside in the Trial Division.For the 1996-1997 biennium, more than84,000 combined civil and criminal caseswere recorded in the Trial Division.

Two Major Sections comprise the TrialDivision of the First Judicial District: 1)the Civil Section; and 2) the CriminalSection. The Trial Division managementstructure is headed by AdministrativeJudge John J. Herron, who was appointedby the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in1996. The Criminal Section also benefitsfrom direction supplied by SupervisingJudge Legrome D. Davis. Each of the twosections of the Trial Division is managedby a Deputy Court Administrator. In theCivil Section, that role is filled by CharlesA. Mapp, Sr., while Joseph A. Caironeheads the non-judicial contingent ofmanagers for the Criminal Section. Athird component, the Jury SelectionCommission, is headed by CommissionerMichael J. McAllister, Esquire. Managersrespond to directives of the AdministrativeJudge and receive guidance from Joseph J.DiPrimio, Esquire, FJD CourtAdministrator.

Of the 67 Judges sitting in the TrialDivision, 35 preside over Civil cases and32 are assigned to hear Criminal matters.

The 35 Judges of the Civil Section hearcases categorized into tracks based on casetypes, complexity, and likely time todisposition. Civil case managementprograms include: 1) Day Forward; 2) DayBackward; 3) Mass Torts; 4) Major NonJury cases and Appeals from Arbitration;and 5) Class Actions, Business Tax, andCompulsory Arbitration. The 47 CivilDivision employees operate out of severallocations — including the ComplexLitigation Center at the WanamakerBuilding — with the majority of the CivilCourtrooms situated in Philadelphia CityHall.

Trial Division Criminal Judges presideover cases that, through similar casemanagement systems, are initiallyclassified in one of three major categories:1) Homicide; 2) Section Calendar (seriousand complex felonies); and 3) ListProgram (non-jury felony trials). TheChief Criminal Calendar Judge reviewscases assigned to the Homicide andSection Calendar programs. Also, theSection Calendar and List Programs arefurther delineated into subsections wherecases are evaluated and assigned “tracks”depending on the likelihood of disposition.

The Jury Selection Commissionempanels jurors for civil and criminalcases working from a pool of about 400candidates each working day. Annualized,this means that the Commission providesapproximately 100,000 people with theopportunity to participate in the judicialprocess, bolstering access to justice. Todesignate these prospective jurors, wellover half of a million pieces of mail areprocessed per year by the Jury SelectionCommission.

Organization


Trial Division

Charles A. Mapp, Sr. Deputy Court Administrator

Frank E. CheckovageDirector

Civil Administration

Dennis A. BrennanManagerDiscovery

Donald SmithManager

Arbitration Center

Mary McGovernCourt Administrative OfficerComplex Litigation Center

Case ManagementConference Center

Court AdministrativeOfficer IIs

Dispute ResolutionCenter

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS TRIAL DIVISIONCivil Section Organization

54


TRIAL DIVISION

to Civil Administration. Employeesexecute their duties in support positionswithin their individual units and provideassistance to the public and the Bar in aninformed, professional, and courteousmanner. To enable employees to fulfilltheir responsibilities and achieve theirindividual and common goals a series ofLegal Administration Workshops began in1997.

As a court of unlimited jurisdiction theCivil Section of the Court of CommonPleas received 68,259 cases filed in 1996and 1997 disposing approximately 87,605cases. The dedication of the Civil Sectionleadership and employees to providingAccess to Justice is manifested in theimplementation of innovative, progressivecase flow management systems augmentedby continuing education for support staff,the creation of appropriate Pre-Trialforums, and advancements in technology.

PURPOSE

The goal of the Civil Section of the TrialDivision is to ensure the efficient,economical and expedient administrationof justice in Philadelphia, providing thehighest standard of equality, fairness andintegrity to the public.

ORGANIZATION

Under the Pennsylvania Constitution, thePhiladelphia Court of Common Pleas is acourt of unlimited original jurisdiction“except as may otherwise be provided bylaw”. Within that broad context, the CivilDivision provides a foundation fordecisions affecting social, economic, andlegal issues emerging in today’s world —with an eye toward providing greateraccess in the future. The Civil Section ismanaged under the direction ofAdministrative Judge John W. Herron.

Including per diem senior judges, 35Common Pleas Court Judges preside overfive major branches of the Civil Section:1) Major Jury Day Forward; 2) Major JuryDay Backward; 3) Complex Litigation; 4)Statutory Appeals; and 5) CompulsoryArbitration. These programmatic casetype categories function within thestructure of the principal departmentalservice centers of Civil Administration:the Complex Litigation Center; theArbitration Center; the Civil CaseManagement Center; the DisputeResolution Center; and the Motion andDiscovery Courts. The Deputy CourtAdministrator in charge of the Civil TrialDivision is Charles A. Mapp, Sr.Reporting to him are the managers of eachof the service centers identified above.There are a total of 47 employees assigned

Civil Section

Judge Howland W. Abramson Judge Norman Ackerman Judge Jacqueline Allen Judge Mark I. Bernstein

Charles A. Mapp, Sr.Deputy Court AdministratorCivil Trial Division

The goal of theCivil Section of

theTrial Divisionis to ensure the

efficient,economical and

expedientadministration of

justice inPhiladelphia,providing the

highest standardof equality,fairness and

integrity to thepublic.



RESPONSIBILITIES

Creative and resourceful managerialdesign fostered by Civil Section leadershipduring the 1996-1997 biennial period ledto the integration of several innovativecivil case management systems. Thesenew strategies have proven so successfulthat they have been incorporated asstandard procedures. In effect, recentachievements have also redefinedresponsibilities for the Civil Section.Tasks have evolved with the adoption ofnew ideas in Court administration.

To ensure effective, efficientmanagement, the First Judicial DistrictCase Management Center, located inRoom 613, City Hall, was created andopened in 1996 to provide a centralizedlocation for Case ManagementConferences. The center is staffed by fiveCase Managers. The purpose of theconferences, scheduled 90 days from dateof commencement, is to provide the courtand parties with early disclosure of basicinformation enabling managers to assigneach case to an appropriate track:Expedited, Standard or Complex. CaseManagement Orders, setting forthdeadlines for discovery, expert reports andthe filing of motions, as well asconference and trial schedules, drive theprocess toward the collaborative goal ofexpedited, prudent resolution.

The commitment to innovation isfurther illustrated in the work conducted atthe Dispute Resolution Center, opened in1997. Located in Room 691 City Hall, theCenter is under the supervision of managerFrank E. Checkovage. All settlementconferences in the Major Jury Programsare conducted by special Judges ProTempore, working under the directsupervision of Judicial Team Leaders.Employing the principle that earlyintervention and preparation lead to moretimely and better dispositions, conferencesscheduled at the completion of discoveryin this forum enable the parties to resolvedisputes without unnecessary extensivetrial preparation. Non-resolution of casesat this point triggers the scheduling of Pre-Trial Conferences before the JudicialTeam Leader, who may then issue ordersscheduling cases for trial. This systemholds down additional costs to the partiesand the Court, and, through improvedefficiency, provides greater access toquality justice.

Another fresh approach represents alandmark in judicial administration. TheComplex Litigation Center was the firstcourthouse in the United States designedexclusively for complex, multi-filed MassTort cases when it opened on February 10,1992. Commentators analyzing theexplosion of mass tort litigation in the1980’s observed that “reflecting thespecial treatment courts accord mass

Civil Section

Judge Matthew D. Carrafiello

Judge Mary D. Colins

Judge Pamela Pryor Dembe

Judge Victor J. DiNubile, Jr. Judge Myrna P. Field Judge Bernard J. Goodheart Senior Judge Marvin R. Halbert


TRIAL DIVISION

claims, at least one trial court (thePhiladelphia Court of Common Pleas) hasformally established a “mass torts”calendar, administeredby a special cadre ofjudges operating out ofa specially equippedfacility”. TheHonorable Victor J.DiNubile, Jr., assistedby CourtAdministrative OfficerMary McGovern,supervises theadministration ofseveral programsconducted at the Complex LitigationCenter located on the 12th floor of TheWanamaker Building (off the southeastcorner of City Hall).

CASE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS

Day Forward Program: The Major JuryDay Forward Program was developed in1995 under the aegis of the thenAdministrative, and now President Judge,Alex Bonavitacola. The Day ForwardProgram encompasses Major Civil Jurycases, with the exception of Mass Tortcases, filed after January 1, 1995. Underthe direction of individual Judicial TeamLeaders, the program is structured to focus

on new cases filed per year. Currently,there are three Day Forward Teams: DayForward 1995 under the supervision of

Judge Mark I.Bernstein; DayForward 1996 underthe supervision ofJudge Albert W.Sheppard; and, DayForward 1997 underthe supervision ofJudge Joseph D.O’Keefe. The successof the Case FlowManagement principlesemployed in the Day

Forward Program is evidenced in the filingof approximately 16,391 cases since 1995and the resolution of approximately11,337 cases by the end of 1997.

Day Backward Program: The DayBackward Program was inaugurated byPresident Judge Alex Bonavitacola with aninitial inventory of almost 29,000 cases.This program was designed to effectuatethe resolution of aged cases, from oldestforward, in an efficient and judiciouslyexpedient manner. Toward that end, theCourt embraced case flow managementmechanisms combining consistentcommunication, cooperation andcommitment. In Day Backward, CaseManagement and Settlement Conferences

Civil Section

Judge Gene D. Cohen

Judge Amanda Cooperman

Judge Alfred J. DiBona, Jr.

Judge Marlene F. Lachman Judge Samuel M. LehrerJudge Arthur S. Kafrissen Senior Judge William J. Lederer

. . . at least one trial court (thePhiladelphia Court of CommonPleas) has formally established

a “mass torts” calendar,administered by a special cadre

of judges operating out of aspecially equipped facility.



As a result of the Judicialdedication and efficient

management of this program,projections indicate that

resolution of all Day Backwardcases will be accomplished

during 1998.

are held in the Case Management andDispute Resolution Service Centers. Atthe conclusion of calendar year 1995,approximately 30,249 cases had beenresolved.

• By 1996, under the direction ofCoordinating Judge G. Craig Lord,along with threeJudicial TeamLeaders, theinventory of 28,496at the program’sinception wasreduced to 5,296cases pending byyear’s end.

• In 1997, under thedirection ofCoordinating JudgeWilliam J. Manfredi, assisted by twoJudicial Team Leaders, the inventorywas further reduced to approximatelyl,500 cases. As a result of the Judicialdedication and efficient management ofthis program, projections indicate thatresolution of all Day Backward caseswill be accomplished during 1998.

Mass Tort Program: The Mass TortProgram calendar includes litigationinvolving Asbestos, DES, L-tryptophan,Lead Paint, Breast Implant, OrthopedicBone Screw, Thorotrast, Carpal TunnelSyndrome, Norplant, Latex Gloves,

Benzine, Tylenol, Stomach Staples,Hearing Loss, Factor Concentrate andTobacco. Mass Tort Programs rely onregular monthly or bi-monthly meetings ofcounsel, the Supervising Judge, and theCourt Administrative Officers. Thesemandatory meetings are designed to

encourage Bench/Barcooperation in thecreation of innovative,efficient andeconomical casemanagementprocedures, andstandardized pleadings.As a result, tailoredcase managementorders delineate themanner in which casesare filed; streamlined

motion and discovery procedures;designation of liaison counsel; and thescheduling of trial dates certain. All MassTort Programs, including Asbestos, arecurrently on an 18 to 24 month time-to-disposition track.

• As a result of streamlined Mass Tortcase management procedures,approximately 900 cases werecommenced in 1996 and more than 600cases were disposed. In 1997 almost1,200 cases were commenced and about1,800 cases were disposed.

Civil Section

Judge Frederica A.Massiah-Jackson

Judge Arnold L. New

Judge Joseph I. Papalini Judge Paul Ribner

Judge Stephen E. Levin

Judge Nitza I.Quinones Alejandro

Senior JudgeEdward B. Rosenberg


TRIAL DIVISION

Major Non-Jury Cases and Appealsfrom Arbitration: In addition to the MassTort Programs, the Complex LitigationCenter houses management and trial of allMajor Non-Jury cases and Appeals fromArbitration. All Major Non-Jury casesundergo Status/Trial SchedulingConferences approximately 90 days aftercommencement. These conferencesgenerate Pre-Trial Orders that promptmandatory settlement conferences andtrial dates certain within one year ofcommencement. Approximately 400 trialScheduling Conferences are conductedmonthly.

• In 1996 and 1997 almost 10,000 ofthese cases were commenced and morethan 11,000 cases were resolved.

The Arbitration Appeal Program ismanaged similarly with Trial SchedulingConferences at the commencement ofAppeals that generate mandatorysettlement conferences and trial datescertain. Approximately 200 Appeal fromArbitration Trial Scheduling Conferencesare conducted monthly.

• In 1996 and 1997 about 4,300 Appealsfrom Arbitration were filed andapproximately 4,600 appeals weredisposed.

Civil Section

A separate trial list for each program ispublished in Philadelphia’s daily legaljournal, The Legal Intelligencer, for a fourweek period. Non-Jury and Jury cases aretried in a “piggy-back” fashion; while ajury is being selected, the Trial Judgepresides over a Non-Jury case.Essentially, the resources of onecourtroom serve two cases simultaneously— meaning improved judicial efficiencyand economy, and access to justice.

Statutory Appeals: The StatutoryAppeals Program, under the supervision ofJudge Stephen Levin, includesAdministrative Agency Appeals, ClassActions and City Business Tax cases. TheStatutory Appeals Program consists ofappeals from adjudications of state andlocal administrative agencies. Close to2,500 appeals were filed in 1996 and1997, and, with efficient case managementprocedures, approximately 2,200 caseswere disposed.

Class Actions, Business Tax, andCompulsory Arbitration: Administrationand management of Class Actions aregoverned by Pa. R.C.P. 1703(b). Pursuantthereto, the Supervising Judge isresponsible for all aspects of the case fromcommencement until trial. In the event ofsettlement, the Supervising Judge isresponsible for class notification andconducting settlement fairness hearings.

Judge Sandra Mazer Moss

Judge Joseph D. O�Keefe

Judge Flora Barth WolfJudge Albert W. Sheppard, Jr. Judge Esther R. Sylvester Judge Allan L. Tereshko

Judge William J. Manfredi



Civil Section

In the event of trial, cases are assignedjudges in the Day Forward Program.During 1996 and 1997, 86 Class Actionsuits were filed and 57 were resolved.

Judge Levin also supervises theconduct of City Business Tax casesinstituted for the collection of outstandingbusiness, wage, or other taxes having anamount in controversy in excess of$50,000. In 1996 and 1997 about 200such cases were filed and more than 200cases were resolved.

Civil cases having amounts of $50,000or less in controversy — exclusive ofinterest and costs — are assigned to theCompulsory Arbitration Program. All

Compulsory Arbitration Hearings are heldin the Court of Common Pleas ArbitrationCenter located on the 2nd Floor of 1601Market Street. To ensure the efficiency ofthis program, Arbitration Hearings arescheduled for dates eight months from thedate of commencement. The Prothonotaryschedules hearings before the ArbitrationPanels consisting of three attorneysengaged in the active practice of law, withprincipal offices in Philadelphia. Eight totwelve panels of Arbitrators hearapproximately 30 cases per day.

• During 1996 and 1997 in excess of35,300 cases were filed in Arbitration andover 42,800 cases were resolved.

Sculpture at John F. Kennedy Plaza.


TRIAL DIVISION

Civil Section Statistics

Major Jury Inventory as of January 1

Year Inventory 1/1 Filings Dispositions

1990 26,155 10,755 9,131

1991 27,779 10,758 10,041

1992 28,496 9,973 11,568

1993 26,901 7,425 12,537

1994 21,789 6,661 9,536

1995 18,886 7,763 9,389

1996 17,260 5,169 8,479

1997 12,349 5,307 12,921

1998 9,074

Non-Jury Inventory as of January 1


1990 9,857 6,553 8,087

1991 8,323 6,729 8,690

1992 6,362 9,475 9,498

1993 4,499 5,002 3,305

1994 6,132 4,521 3,532

1995 7,121 4,026 7,987

1996 4,112 6,581 7,030

1997 3,731 3,473 4,057

1998 4,713

Other Civil Actions* (Excluding Arbitration)


1990 6,678 6,790 5,928

1991 6,790 532 1,385

1992 5,928 718 1,691

1993 7,980 5,803 7,490

1994 6,385 5,855 7,305

1995 4,935 6,435 6,684

1996 6,045 3,803 4,713

1997 6,047 7,050 7,690

1998 7,922

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS/CIVIL TRIAL SECTIONSTATISTICAL SUMMARY

*Includes Mass Tort, Appeals from Arbitration, Appeals from Municipal Court, Tax Cases & Statutory Appeals.

**Balances as of 1/1 indicate actual case counts. Filings and dispositions do not include cases which were disposed and subsequentlyreopened nor transferred between one or more programs.

5

10

15

20

25

30

Th

ou

san

ds

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Major Jury InventoryJanuary 1

2

4

6

8

10

12

Th

ou

san

ds

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Non-Jury InventoryJanuary 1

4

5

6

7

8

9

Th

ou

san

ds

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Other Civil ActionsJanuary 1

Honorable Legrome D. DavisSupervising Judge



Trial Division

Joseph A. CaironeDeputy Court Administrator

Joseph A. LanzilottiDirector

Active Criminal Records

John S. IrvineChief Adult

Probation Officer

Robert J. MalvestutoChief Director

Admin. ServicesAdult Probation

Alfred R. CarloneDirector

Criminal Listings

Nathaniel A. JohnsonDirector

Pretrial Services

John J. DayDirector

Courtroom Operations

Coding Unit

File Security TrailArraignment

General Supervision 1



IntermediatePunishment

Special Services

Court LiaisonUnit

Bench WarrantViolation of Probation

Post ConvictionRelief Unit

Appeals/Post Trial Unit

Operations

Planning andInformation

PresentenceInvestigation

Personnel Services

Management Services

Trial Commissioners

CourtInformation

CourtAppointments

Counsel InterviewsNotification &

Records

Conditional ReleaseDetention Review

Case Management

ArraignmentinterviewsPAB/CJC

ComputerManagement

Info.

Warrant ServiceUnit

CourtAdministrative

Officers

Tipstaffs

Court InterpretersMotion Unit

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS TRIAL DIVISIONCriminal Section Branch Organization

62


TRIAL DIVISION

ORGANIZATION

The Criminal Section receives approxi-mately 16,000 felony filings each year.There are 32 Common Pleas judgesassigned to preside over felony mattersand related hearings in the Section.Administrative Judge John W. Herronand Supervising Judge Legrome D.Davis supervise the administration of allfacets of the Criminal Section operation.Judicial leaders are supported in turn byDeputy Court Administrator Joseph A.Cairone, and divisional departmentsthrough Directors and Chiefs. Fivemajor branches comprise the CriminalSection organizational structure: 1)Active Criminal Records; 2) AdultProbation and Parole Department(APPD); 3) Courtroom Operations; 4)Criminal Listings; and 5) PretrialServices.

PURPOSE

The Section aims for the continuous andexpeditious provision of quality criminaljustice — particularly concerning theearly resolution of impediments to trial —via modern case management systems,adept pre-trial and post-trial defendantsupervision, and the supply of qualifiedlegal counsel to the indigent. Throughthese means, the Criminal Section culti-vates access to swift but fair outcomes.

RESPONSIBILITIES

Through evaluation and categorizationaccording to several factors (differenti-ated case management), cases areassigned to one of three programs:Homicide, Section Calendar (moreserious and complex felony cases), andList (non-jury felony bench trials).

The Homicide program operateswithin a hybrid master/individualcalendar framework monitored by theChief Criminal Calendar Judge whoreviews both the Homicide and theSection Calendar categories prior totrial assignment.

The Section Calendar program hasfour sections of four judges each,including a section leader. After athorough pretrial conference, cases arefurther delineated to tracks based oncharges and/or complexity, and assignedrandomly by computer to a section fordisposition. Section leaders againreview cases to ensure compliance withpretrial orders, and examine the possi-bility of non-trial dispositions.Subsequently, matters are assignedrandomly within track by computer toindividual judges within each sectionfor disposition. Then, each trial judgemaintains an individual calendar andeffects disposition.

Criminal Section

Judge Willis W. Berry, Jr. Judge Genece BrinkleyJudge Bernard J. Avellino Judge Edward J. Bradley

Joseph A. CaironeDeputy Court AdministratorCriminal Section



The List Program is controlled by theassigned judiciary and the office ofCriminal Listings. These cases areidentified as non-jury bench trials earlyon — at the time ofarraignment. As withthe more complexSection Calendarcases, List cases areassigned to tracks,trial readiness confer-ences are held, andexpedited trial list-ings are scheduled.Criminal ListingsData Entry functionsinclude the dailyentry of arraignment information todevelop a list of “B” track cases (cus-tody defendants) to encourage thetimely disposition of custody casesthrough agreement, or, alternatively, toensure that they are ready for trial at thefirst listing.

ACHIEVEMENTSThe active case inventory has beenreduced by approximately 35% since theintroduction of differentiated casemanagement in 1990, and by approxi-mately 1,000 cases since the opening ofthe Criminal Justice Center just prior to

the biennium. These gains have beenmaintained through programs initiatedduring calendar year 1996, and contin-ued through 1997. Importantly,expedited dispositions during these

biennial years havestreamlined the trialprocess and bolsteredaccess throughenhanced servicedelivery. On average,List Program casesare disposed in fourmonths; SectionCalendar cases withinsix months; andHomicide cases

within a year. This represents a signifi-cant reduction over past years in the ageof cases at the time of adjudication.

In addition to emphasis on casemanagement initiatives bringing timelydispositions, the Section focuses onprison overcrowding problems andmethods to maintain or reduce thepopulation. Spearheaded by SupervisingJudge Davis, the development of newPretrial Release Guidelines based ondefendants’ risk/need assessments weredeveloped and implemented. To assistin reducing the prison population tomanageable levels, Criminal Justice

Criminal Section

Senior Judge John J. Chiovero

Senior JudgeAnthony J. DeFino

Judge Joan A. Brown

Judge Tama Myers Clark

Judge Gary F. DiVitoJudge Legrome D. Davis

. . . inventory has beenreduced by approximately

35% since . . . 1990, and by .. . 1,000 cases since theopening of the Criminal

Justice Center just prior to thebiennium. . . .

Senior JudgeEugene H. Clarke, Jr.


TRIAL DIVISION

partners met and developed a specialrelease mechanism based on establishedcriteria including defendants’ risks andneeds, and the potential threat to thecommunity. Consequently, thosedefendants who are released based onthe criteria developed present the leastrisk to the community. Crash Court, areview mechanism for recently incarcer-ated defendants charged withmisdemeanors, and staffed by CommonPleas Trial Commissioners located on-site at the prison, was expanded toinclude greater numbers of inmates andto provide accelerated release whereappropriate.

During 1996-1997, the PretrialService Department continued to devoteand focus resources on the timelydelivery of services to pretrial defen-dants, and expanded responsibilities toinclude Electronic Monitoring installa-tion and monitoring for pre-trial andpost-trial defendants. The developmentof an instructional pretrial orientationvideo, the assignment of new casemanagers, and the hiring of additionalwarrant service investigators to ensurethe appearance of defendants, havehelped reduce the bench warrant popula-tion by 2,000 defendants and increaseappearance rates. During the latter part

of 1997, the Conditional Release hear-ing list and the Jackson v. Hendricksreview list prepared by Pretrial staffwere consolidated and presented tobetter coordinate Philadelphia PrisonSystem overcrowding relief efforts.

PROGRAM INITIATIVES

Recognizing the wide array of criminaldefendants’ needs, Criminal Sectionleadership developed and participated inthe implementation of two innovativeCourt treatment-oriented programs.

Female Offenders Comprehensiveand Integrated Services (FOCIS): TheFOCIS program targets and recognizesthe varied needs of female offenders.Credentialed assessors pinpoint defen-dants’ problems while IntegratedService Coordinators link the Court andthe treatment communities. The pro-gram, to date, has provided services for105 female offenders and presentlymaintains an active roster of 85 clients.

Municipal Court Treatment Court(Drug Court): Supervising Judge Davis,Court Administration, and the PretrialService Division participated in theinitiation of the Municipal Court Treat-ment Court. Pretrial staff weretemporarily assigned to act as Treatment

Criminal Section

Judge Jane Cutler GreenspanJudge Steven R. Geroff Judge Gary S. Glazer

The development ofan instructional

pretrial orientationvideo, the

assignment of newcase managers, and

the hiring ofadditional warrant

serviceinvestigators to

ensure theappearance of

defendants, havehelped reduce the

bench warrantpopulation by

2,000 defendants.

Judge James J. Fitzgerald, III



Court Coordinators and case managersto work cooperatively with MunicipalCourt, the District Attorney’s Office andthe Defender Association. Additionally,FOCIS staff provided assessments ofdefendants in the program. A crucialelement of this new approach is thecareful selection of defendants withsubstance abuse problems and theirengagement with appropriate treatmentfacilities. Treatment Court is a first inthe state of Pennsylvania, and is ex-pected to better serve the needs ofdefendants and the community. (SeeMunicipal Court Section.)

DEPARTMENTS

Active Criminal Records, managed byDirector Joseph A. Lanzalotti andDeputy Director Leonard A. Armstrong,is composed of seven units that monitorvarious aspects of the daily operationsof the Criminal Section. The Depart-ment is responsible for maintaining thecriminal case information; processingpretrial and post trial actions; providingrecords; scheduling; and coordinatingdocumentation between the Court,Philadelphia Prisons and the Pennsylva-nia Department of Corrections. By theexecution of these duties, Active Crimi-

nal Records is doing its share in provid-ing equal access to the customers of thecriminal justice system in a professionaland timely manner.

The Office of Criminal Listings, ledby Director Alfred R. Carlone andDeputy Director Charles A. Lanzalotti,is responsible for overseeing all trialcase scheduling and case inventorymanagement. In addition, this officeresponds to 150,000 telephone, per-sonal, and written inquiries per year.The department also provides supportand assistance to the judiciary, staff,attorneys, defendants, witnesses, em-ployees, agencies and the public. Thisoffice also processes appointments ofcounsel for indigent defendants andconducts case review and assignment forthe Criminal Section programs. TrialCommissioners are appointed to act in apara-judicial capacity to relieve thecriminal Court judiciary of administra-tive tasks. As a result, access iscultivated through more efficient caseflow administration.

The Pretrial Services Departmentunder Director Nathaniel A. Johnson,and Deputy Director David V. Preski, isresponsible for many of the componentsthat allow for easy access to the Crimi-

Criminal Section

Judge Richard B. Klein

Judge Ricardo C. Jackson

Judge C. Darnell Jones, II

Judge D. Webster Keogh Judge Robert A. Latrone Judge Anne E. Lazarus

Judge Lynn Bennett Hamlin


TRIAL DIVISION

nal Justice process. Using PretrialRelease Guidelines, the Department actsas the informational gatekeeper tosupport judicial decision-makers fromthe preliminary arraignment stagethrough the adjudica-tion process. Aninterview unit utiliz-ing video technologyoperates round theclock at the PoliceAdministrationBuilding and CriminalJustice Center sites.The unit providesdetailed personalinformation aboutdefendants, charges,and risks of misconduct gained throughinterviews. This information is thenutilized to make bail determinations.Data concerning personal information,community ties, finances, employment,schooling, and family history areentered into a new personal computerapplication, PC Pretrial+. The inter-viewing unit processes in excess of40,000 defendants a year. The RecordsDepartment maintains arrest records foraccess by Pretrial, other First JudicialDistrict Departments, and externalCriminal Justice agencies. Philadelphia

Pretrial provides defendant orientationand supervision, and is unique in that ithas as one of its major departmentalcomponents an armed Warrant/Enforce-ment Unit operating continuously to

enforce releaseconditions.

The Adult Proba-tion and ParoleDepartment (APPD)was identified byAdministrative JudgeJohn W. Herron as acritical component ofthe justice systemwhen he initiated anevaluation of theDepartment’s opera-

tions immediately after his appointmentas Administrative Judge in January1996. This community correctionsagency provides post-trial services tothe Courts, serves to protect the commu-nity, offers opportunities to offenders toimprove their lives, and assists victims.During this biennial period, ManagingJudge C. Darnell Jones, II, Co-ChiefProbation Officer of APPD SupervisionServices John S. Irvine, and Co-ChiefProbation Officer of APPD Administra-tive Services Robert J. Malvestuto wereappointed to help lead the Department

Criminal Section

Judge Sheldon C. Jelin

Judge Barbara A. Joseph

Judge Eugene Edw. J. MaierJudge Benjamin Lerner Judge James A. LinebergerJudge Kathryn S. Lewis

Judge Renee Cardwell Hughes

Over 34,000 adultoffenders who have beensentenced to probation

and/or paroled from countyprison receive Adult

Probation and ParoleServices.



into the 21st Century. A SteeringCommittee appointed by Judge Herroninitially met to examine the varyingneeds and deliverables of the Depart-ment, and the strengths and weaknessesof the Agency throughweekly meetings.Weekly DivisionalUnit meetingschaired by ManagingJudge Jones alsoprovided staff theopportunity to iden-tify and notify APPDleadership of prob-lems and concerns. Aclose preliminaryexamination of thedepartment led to the reassignment ofprofessional probation officers fromadministrative duties to the vital area ofcase supervision. Over 34,000 adultoffenders who have been sentenced toprobation and/or paroled from countyprison receive Adult Probation andParole Services. Offenders undersupervision often have substance addic-tion, mental health, social, educational,or vocational problems. Probationofficers are criminal justice experts whomust balance issues and needs confront-ing today’s clientele. As a result of the

Criminal Section

reorganization, average supervisingcaseloads were reduced, allowing formore concentrated performance.

Common Pleas Courtroom Opera-tions provides security and operational

services in court-rooms. The Chief ofCourtroom Opera-tions, John J. Day andDeputy Chief, JohnPurtell, manage theactivities of supervi-sory and courtroompersonnel for criminaland civil courtrooms,implement anddevelop operationalplans and training

procedures, and ensure proper court-room staffing. They establish andmaintain effective working relationshipsbetween courtroom staff and the Judi-ciary, Court Administration, HumanResources, and the public. Addition-ally, Courtroom Operations providesADA accommodations in the form ofwheelchairs, electronic hearing devices,and connection to the AT&T LanguageService Line in the Criminal JusticeCenter.

The Interpreters’ Unit is responsiblefor the assignment of Spanish speakinginterpreters to various Court cases. The

Judge John J. Poserina, Jr.

Judge Peter F. Rogers Judge M. Teresa Sarmina Senior Judge David N. Savitt Judge Gregory E. Smith

Judge William J. Mazzola

As a result of the AdultProbation and Parole

Department reorganization,average supervising

caseloads were reduced,allowing for more

concentrated performance.

Judge Patricia McInerney


TRIAL DIVISION

Judge Lisa A. Richette

Judge Juanita Kidd Stout Judge John Milton YoungeJudge Albert John Snite, Jr. Judge Carolyn Engel Temin

interpreter’s job is to provide access tosurmount language barriers to communi-cative participation. The Trial Divisionprovides other required interpreterservices through contracted certifiedvendors.

PLANS FOR THE FUTURE

Trial Division leaders recognizeachievements in case management andother accomplishments, but they areaware that they must continue to antici-pate and address constantly changingdemands of the Criminal Justice System.As a result of the APPD Steering Com-mittee and Divisional Unit meetings, itis expected that Phase I of the AdultProbation and Parole Department’sreorganization will be announced in theearly part of calendar year 1998. Thereorganization, fine tuning thereafter,

Criminal Section

and other changes at APPD, including arisk/need post-trial assessment tool, willprovide the impetus to better reflect theexpectations of the Judiciary, theadministrative body of the CriminalSection, and the public.

In the immediate future, Differenti-ated Case Management techniques willbe utilized in all Common Pleas crimi-nal matters. Plans for expansion of theSection Calendar program starting inJanuary, 1998 include a Mixed CalendarSection of Homicide matters assigned toa section leader from arraignment withtrial according to track as per theSection Calendar protocol previoulydescribed. An additional section maybe formed in 1998 and implementationof Mixed Homicide and Major Felonycases should be accomplished soonafter.

Judge Rayford A. Means



Criminal Section Statistics

Begin Inv. Sept. End Inv. End Inv.1990 1995* 1996** 1997**

Homicide 407 393 363 365Major Felony 2,654 2,444 2,981 2,557List 7,068 4,880 3,804 3,919Total 10,129 7,717 7,148 6,841

*Move to Criminal Justice Center**Please refer to text for detailed information

360

370

380

390

400

410

No. of

Cases

Begin. Inv. 1990 Sept. 1995* End. Inv. 1996** End. Inv. 1997**

Homicide

2400

2600

2800

3000

3200

No.

of

Cases


Major Felony

3.5

4.5

5.5

6.5

7.5

8.5

Th

ou

san

ds

No. of

Cases


List

6

7

8

9

10

11

Th

ou

san

ds

No. of

Cases


Totals

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Th

ou

san

ds

No. of

Ca

ses


Homicide

Major Felony

List

Total



TRIAL DIVISION

ORGANIZATION & PURPOSE

The importance of public Access tojustice is nowhere more evident than inthe work of the Jury Selection Commis-sion. Each day, under the direction ofJury Commissioner, Michael J.McAllister, Esquire, the PhiladelphiaCounty Jury Selection Commissionprovides access for approximately 400prospective jurors who serve more thanninety Criminal and Civil Trial Judgesthroughout the First Judicial District.Along with the Commissioner and staff,Jury Selection officers, clerks, techni-cians and managers strive torespectfully and courteously provideaccess to the Court, to the greatestextent possible, for Philadelphia citizensparticipating in Jury Service.

RESPONSIBILITIES

Within the framework of a one day/onetrial system, the Commission mailsquestionnaires and qualifies and sum-mons prospective jurors through morethan 600,000 pieces of mail annually.The result: at least 100,000 citizens gainaccess to the judicial process each year.The Commission also accommodatesjurors in the Assembly Room; tracksjuror status throughout proceedings incivil and criminal courtrooms; andprocesses and distributes jury fee checksto participants at the conclusion of theirservice. While efficiencies continue toreduce criminal and civil case invento-ries, the demand for jury trials hasnonetheless remained constant. Payingnine dollars per day, jury fees disbursedaveraged $1.5 million annually.

ACHIEVEMENTS

New Accommodations: Formerlylocated in City Hall, the Jury SelectionCommission moved to the currentheadquarters at the Criminal JusticeCenter in September 1995. This move,just prior to the beginning of the 1996-1997 biennial report period, generatedopportunities to furnish prospectivejurors improved access to the Courtsystem through accommodations builtfor just that purpose. Located in Crimi-nal Justice Center Room 101, the newJury Assembly Room is easily acces-sible, barrier free, smoke-free, andcomfortably furnished for prospectivejurors. An orientation video —“Wel-come to Jury Duty” — is available oneleven recessed video monitors so thatjurors can learn their integral role in theadministration and dispensation ofjustice. Jurors’ Lounge amenitiesinclude vending machines, telephones,water fountains, and expanded restroomfacilities. These facilities are vastlyimproved over those at the formerCommission headquarters in City Hall.Desktop PC’s and upgraded office andcommunications equipment support staffin providing improved quality of serviceto jurors, other Court agencies andPhiladelphia citizens.

Jury Committee Formed: A JudicialJury Selection Committee has beenempaneled to examine issues includingjuror appreciation, improved automationand technology, effective juror utiliza-tion, and methods of promoting jurorresponse. Chaired by Judge RichardKlein, this committee cultivates bettercommunication between the Philadel-phia Jury Commissioner, the Judiciary,Court Administration, various Philadel-phia Court agencies, and JuryCommissioners from surrounding

Jury Selection Commission

Michael J. McAllister, EsquireJury Selection Commissioner



jurisdictions. The Committee developedand supported innovative recommenda-tions for improved access to justice forjurors.

Meet the Judges Program: JudgeMarvin Halbert, long known to besensitive to jurors and their contribu-tions, coordinates another successfuljuror access initiative. In this verysuccessful program, volunteer Judgeswelcome prospective jurors in theAssembly Room. Jurors have respondedfavorably to the opportunity to meetjudges. Jurors are better oriented to theproceedings and their duties, and morecomfortable with the experience.Arguably, these improvements enhancethe quality of justice while increasingaccessibility.

Jury Selection Commission

Expanding Access: For 24-houraccess to information, an AutomatedVoice Mail system conveys generalinformation and answers the mostcommonly asked questions pertaining tojury questionnaire and summonses. TheInternet page titled “Jury Duty inPhiladelphia County Courts” under theFirst Judicial District of Pennsylvania,Philadelphia Courts On-Line relaysinformation on jury selection andservice.

In accordance with the AmericanDisabilities Act of 1990, the Commis-sion works to ensure that qualifiedindividuals with physical disabilitieshave access to all reasonable andavailable accommodations essential fortheir opportunity to effectively serve asjurors.

FAMILY DIVISIONCOURT OF COMMON PLEAS

Paul P. PanepintoAdministrative Judge

Family Division Organization ................................................... 75Juvenile Branch ...................................................................... 77Juvenile Branch Statistics ....................................................... 83Domestic Relations Branch ...................................................... 85

Domestic Relations Branch Statistics ......... 91Copy pro-vided in Mac format

IN THIS SECTION

Letter From the Administrative JudgeDecisions made in the Family Court Division affect the very core ofour society � the family. The Division�s dedicated judges and staffare motivated in their work by principles intended to foster the well-being and best interests of our children, and their families andcommunities. Access to the courts of the Family Division provides,in a very real sense, a foundation for the future.

In the Juvenile Branch, the �Balanced Approach RestorativeJustice� promulgated through recent amendments to the JuvenileAct, elicited programmatic responses that broadened the focus ofattention to reflect renewed concerns for victims and communities inaddition to the offender. The Victim and Community Service Unit,partnering Probation and Police Officers, and initiation of neighbor-hood Truancy Courts serve to address the needs of the community,provide a high profile presence on the street, and coordinate severalagencies working from community-based service centers: primeexamples of access to justice.

The Domestic Relations Branch continues to respond to ever-increasing public service access needs through enhanced automatedcase processing, a new Customer Service Unit, increased supportcollections, and a Custody Master system to better address thesensitive issues pertaining to children of separating, divorcing, andunmarried parents. Harking in new era in Family Law, DomesticRelations judges and employees have also recognized the Court�sevolving role in dealing with the impact of Welfare Reform on chil-dren and families by helping unemployed Domestic Relations casemember parents find job opportunities and training programsthrough the �Networking-for-Jobs� program.

Through the commitment and tireless efforts of Family DivisionJudges and Staff, innovative programming, and community involve-ment, more people than ever before are participating in the judicialprocess in Philadelphia. By granting greater access they are trulylaying a �Foundation for the Future.�

Honorable Paul P. PanepintoAdministrative Judge

Family Division

Matthew M. TierneyCourt Administrator

Juvenile Branch

Margaret T. McKeown, Esq.Court Administrator

Domestic Relations Branch

Ervin L. DavisDirector

Management & Staff

Mary Lou BakerDirector

Operation & Case Processing

Kenneth E. HaleChief Juvenile

Probation Officer

Daniel F Madonna, Esq.Director, Systems &

Program Development

John FitzgeraldDirector

Medical Branch

Andrea Hoffman JelinDirector

Children & Youth Services

Joseph C. Kamnik, Jr.Director, Bureau of Accounts

& IV-D Compliance

Joseph J. HarbsonDirector

Personnel & Facilities

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FAMILY DIVISIONOrganization

74


FAMILY DIVISION

Organization

OVERVIEW

The Family Division of the Court ofCommon Pleas, is the next to largestdivisional court of the First JudicialDistrict (FJD), relative to the number ofjudges and employees. During the 1996-1997 Biennium, the Family Divisionreceived and processed almost 147,000total filings. In addition, in the interest ofchild and family subjects of delinquencyand dependency petitions, to safeguardvictims and communities, and to furtherensure access, tens of thousands of reviewhearings are conducted each year tomonitor existing cases.

Effective January 1, 1969, an amend-ment to the judiciary article of thePennsylvania Constitution of 1874 pro-vided for a Family Court Division of theCourt of Common Pleas, creating a FamilyCourt structure and procedures based inpart upon those of the former CountyCourt of Philadelphia. The JuvenileBranch has jurisdiction over JuvenileDelinquency, Dependency, and Adoptionscases, while the Domestic RelationsBranch is responsible for proceedingspertaining to Divorce, Child and SpousalSupport, Child Custody, and Protectionfrom Abuse cases.

Administrative Judge Paul P. Panepintooversees all facets of Family Divisionmanagement and operations. The Domes-tic Relations and Juvenile Branches areeach managed by a Court Administrator:Margaret T. McKeown, Esquire, in theDomestic Relations Branch; and MatthewM. Tierney for the Juvenile Branch. Theyreport to Administrative Judge Panepinto,and also respond to the directives of FJDCourt Administrator Joseph J. DiPrimio,Esquire. Aside from the AdministrativeJudge, 21 judges preside in the FamilyDivision. Of these, 10 are assigned to theJuvenile Bench, and 11 preside in Domes-tic Relations cases.

The 836 employees of the Juvenile andDomestic Relations Branches have keptpace with increasing demands for accessin their respective fields. Judges, manag-ers, and employees of both branchesemploy case management techniquesbringing cases to swift, fair resolutions.Domestic Relations Branch judges andemployees take useful advantage of athree-tiered system of hearings beforemasters and judges to resolve oftendifficult, and always sensitive cases.Improvements continue to transformprocesses making them more user friendlyand efficient through enhanced access,educational programs, state of the artscientific DNA testing, and streamlinedcase management systems. Also, theDomestic Relations Branch continues toreceive accolades for record-settingperformances in obtaining support moneyfor children and ushering families off thewelfare roles.

In the Juvenile Branch, increasingnumbers of cases are disposed earlier — atthe pre-trial level. Further, the judges,management, and staff of the JuvenileBranch have responded to strident legisla-tive and public mandates for moreaggressive approaches to juvenile crime.Together, they have fashioned innovativeprograms that provide for more stringentsanctions for juvenile offenders, whileinvolving and paying heed to victim andneighborhood sensitivities to a greaterdegree than ever before.

Though the workforce is relatively large,the hundreds of staff are widely viewed asconcerned and conscientious individuals,supported by forward looking leadership.They are fully aware that the successfulexecution of their duties helps to bolster thecurrent and future strength of families andneighborhoods in Philadelphia.


Family Division

Matthew M. TierneyCourt Administrator

Juvenile Branch

REAAP Unit

Andrea Hoffman JelinDirector

Children Youth Services

PsychologistsBrian T. CoenDeputy Chief

Naomi PostDeputy Chief

Irwin GreggDeputy ChiefTipstaff Unit

Adoptions/Termination ofParental Rights

Nursery

Security/Watchmen

CustodialStaff

Mail Unit

DispositionalPlanning

Managed Care

Special OffendersUnit

DHS Contracts

State IntensiveAftercare

Victim &Community

Service

Mental HealthUnit

ResidentialTreatmentFacilities

School BasedProbation

Unit

Training

Intake

Glen MillsAftercare

Aftercare Services

ElectronicMonitoring

Unit

IntensiveProbationServices

Intensive Drug &Alcohol Unit

Mediation &Assessment

Unit

Training

CommunityRelated

InstitutionalProbation

Northeast

Northwest

North Central

South

West

Central

Training

PoliceProbation

Partnership

John FitzgeraldDirector

Medical Branch

Ervin L. DavisDirector

Management & Staff

Kenneth HaleChief Juvenile

Probation Officer


Juvenile Branch Organization FAMILY DIVISION

76


FAMILY DIVISION

Juvenile Branch

ORGANIZATION

From their location at 1801 Vine Streetoverlooking Logan Square, judges andemployees of the Juvenile Court Branchof the Family Division administerjuvenile delinquency and dependencycases, and criminal cases where adultshave been charged with crimes againstminors.

Led by Family Division Administra-tive Judge Paul P. Panepinto, MatthewM. Tierney is the Administrator ofJuvenile Court overseeing the workingsof the four main divisions of the court:1) the Management and Staff Office; 2)Children and Youth Services; 3) theMedical Branch; and 4) the JuvenileProbation Department. The JuvenileBranch has roughly 375 employees, ofwhom 325 are assigned to the ProbationDepartment under the leadership ofChief Probation Officer Kenneth E.Hale.

PURPOSE

Juvenile Court Branch employees andjudges provide administrative, adjudica-tive and dispositive services for thejuveniles, families, schools, and theneighborhood communities of Philadel-phia. Working through a globalapproach in collaboration with otherjuvenile welfare and justice agenciesand institutions, the Court utilizes anarray of administrative tools and pro-grammatic responses tailored to improvethe quality of life of the citizenry of theCity and the individuals who compriseit. In this endeavor, an impressivenumber of initiatives are employed tofurther access to justice.

RESPONSIBILITIES

Most of the volume of the work of theJuvenile Court concerns two major casetype categories: Delinquency cases andDependency cases. During the bien-nium, almost 25,000 new delinquencyand dependency petitions were filed.Delinquency petitions are filed againstjuveniles aged 10 to 17, charged withwhat would be considered misdemeanoror felony violations of criminal law hadthey been committed by an adult.Dependency petitions are filed on behalfof children who may be found to besuffering from abuse, neglect, or inad-equate care. Dependent courtsadminister the legal steps to improvecare of children in the home and, in thealternative, adoption — includingrequisite termination of parental rights.Dependent Courts also have jurisdictionover “status” offenders includingtruants, and juveniles accused of incor-rigibility by their families. Activities ofthe Juvenile Court are governed in part,by Title 42, Pennsylvania ConsolidatedStatutes §6301 et seq. (the JuvenileAct). In adult criminal cases involvingchild victims, Juvenile Court Judgespreside over adult trials for misde-meanor charges and preliminaryhearings for felony charges.

Delinquency: New delinquencypetitions for juveniles arrested by Policeare filed by the court’s DelinquentIntake Unit, based at the Youth StudyCenter (YSC) juvenile detention facil-ity. Located at 20th Street andBenjamin Franklin Parkway, the YSC isopen 24 hours a day. Once arrestedjuveniles are held in detention, trialsmust be scheduled for a date within theensuing 10 day period. If not held in

Matthew M. TierneyCourt AdministratorJuvenile Branch


COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FAMILY DIVISION

Juvenile Branch

custody, a Pre-Trial Hearing is sched-uled, followed by an Adjudicatory(trial) Hearing. Juveniles are adjudi-cated delinquent as a result of judicialfindings affirming one or more of theallegations. In these cases, youths areplaced on probation or committed toresidential facilities, the latter usuallyfollowed by aftercare probation. Juve-nile Probation Officers provide personalsupervision and monitor the delivery ofdelinquent intervention services fromagencies funded through the CityDepartment of Human Services (DHS).Review Hearings are required on aregular basis for minors in residentialplacement to measure progress anddetermine suitability for discharge.Review Hearings are also held inresponse to motions alleging probationviolations and other problems.

Dependency: Most dependency casesare initiated by DHS in response toallegations of child maltreatment. Somecases are referred by the School Districtbecause of truancy. Also, a parent mayfile an incorrigibility petition. If theCourt adjudicates a child dependent(upon the Court), DHS may be orderedto accept custody of the involvedchild(ren) or to provide in-home super-vision and services for the family.

Review Hearings are held regularly forchildren in foster care to monitorprogress toward a court-ordered goal —generally reunification with the family— or conversely, adoption.

ACHIEVEMENTS

A policy was established in 1996 todispose of more delinquent cases at thePre-Trial Hearing stage. This improve-ment generated 1,511 Pre-Trial Hearingdispositions in 1996. The additional849 dispositions represented a 128%increase over the 662 Pre-Trial disposi-tions in 1995. In 1997, 1,454 caseswere completed at the Pre-Trial stage,maintaining previous gains in expedi-ence and benefitting access to justice.

Also, 1996 saw the adoption of a onefamily/one judge policy. In JuvenileCourt, a judge disposing of a case isalso assigned any subsequent hearings.As a result, most Review Hearings inboth Delinquent and Dependent Courtsare assigned to the judge most familiarwith the family — the one who adjudi-cated the original case. This practiceprovides continuity of decisions withineach case and family, serves to instillpublic confidence, and supports accessto the Courts.

Senior Judge Joseph C. Bruno

Judge Richard J. Gordon, Jr. Judge James Murray Lynn

Judge NicholasM. D�Alessandro

Judge Murray C. Goldman


FAMILY DIVISION

Juvenile Branch

Moreover, significant access tojustice developments are presentedbelow in a special section under theheading “Major Access to JusticeDevelopments in 1996-1997.”

DEPARTMENTS

Probation Department: The ProbationDepartment provides staff services todelinquent and dependent Court opera-tions, and supervision services todelinquent and some dependent youths.The department operates the DelinquentIntake Unit, places juveniles in variousintervention programs, and works torestore the victim and the communityaffected by crime. Court LiaisonOfficers in delinquent courtrooms andCourt Representatives in dependentcourtrooms provide essential informa-tion and immediately enter dispositionalinformation into the Court mainframecomputer. Probation officers supervisedelinquents in the community and helpto prepare institutionalized youths fortheir return to their families and com-munities.

Medical Branch: Headed by JohnFitzgerald, Medical Branch staff psy-chologists conduct mental healthassessments of juveniles for the Court.

Staff psychologists examine, diagnose,and recommend treatment for clientsreferred by other branches of the Courtor ordered by the judiciary. Profes-sional findings support the judicialdecision making process.

Children and Youth: Under theguidance of Andrea Hoffman Jelin,Children and Youth staff work withtruants, incorrigibles, and their families.Their important work helps to preservefamilies and stabilize behavior. Indi-viduals, their families, schools, andcommunities benefit as a result. Inaddition, preemptive intervention anddiversion from further Court involve-ment address emerging problemslimiting the potential for escalation intomore serious conduct. Truancy issueshave come to the forefront as a portentto antisocial behavior, and JuvenileCourt judges, administration, and staffare vigilant in addressing this problemthrough innovative and cooperativeprograms seeking to stem truancy andrelated problems.

Management and Staff Office: Withdirection provided by Ervin Davis, thisoffice provides assistance and guidancewith budgetary and personnel concernsthat underlie virtually all other facets ofJuvenile Court operations.

Judge Abram Frank Reynolds Judge Edward R. Summers

Judge Thomas Dempsey

Judge Lillian Harris Ransom



Juvenile Branch

MAJOR ACCESS TO JUSTICE

DEVELOPMENTS IN 1996-97Juvenile Law Changes – Delinquency:In 1996, the Commonwealth of Pennsyl-vania adopted a new approach tojuvenile delinquency, the Balanced andRestorative Justice Model, in the pursuitof three goals: 1) accountability of theoffender to the victim and community;2) public safety; and 3) development ofcompetencies for juvenile offenders.This approach involves the communityand the victim as clients with an interestand standing in the system, along withthe offender. The strategy improvescommunication and widens publicaccess to justice. Public confidence inthe Court is also advanced. A Balancedand Restorative Justice Working Teamof probation staff and others, includingstakeholders from various agencies ofthe Philadelphia juvenile justice andvictim service systems, is working toincorporate this philosophy into theirpolicies and programs. Several newprograms incorporating a balancedjuvenile justice philosophy have beeninstituted by the juvenile probationdepartment.

Other recent changes in Juvenile Lawhave affected the Court in a number ofways. Felony adjudicatory hearingshave been opened to the public. Schoolprincipals are provided with JuvenileCourt delinquency history informationwhen their students are adjudicateddelinquent. Juvenile sex offenders mustprovide a blood specimen for futureDNA identification purposes. Individu-als reaching the age of 21 with unpaidjuvenile restitution obligations are

subject to the imposition of civil judg-ments to facilitate payment ofrestitution even after juvenile Courtjurisdiction ends. While youths arrestedfor violent felonies armed with a deadlyweapon are initially excluded fromJuvenile Court jurisdiction, they may betransferred to Juvenile Court from adultCriminal Court through DecertificationHearings, when in the public interest.

Victim and Community ServicesUnit: With funding from a state grantprogram designed to help juvenilecourts and agencies implement theBalanced and Restorative Justice Model,the Court created the Victim and Com-munity Services Program in 1997. Thisprobation program works to restorevictims and their neighborhoods throughthe imposition of restitution and com-munity service, and the continuingdevelopment of more victim and com-munity sensitive Court programs andpolicies. Probation officers are workingto create more community serviceprojects with key City agencies andlocal community groups. A VictimRestoration Fund is being establishedwith public and private donations toenable indigent juveniles to earn moneyand pay court-ordered restitutionthrough public service. A VictimAdvisory Board works with the VictimPrograms Coordinator to produce morecomprehensive programs for victims andoffenders attending to victim needs andconcerns.

Special Offenders Unit: To promotepublic safety and to tackle the oftenweighty rehabilitative needs of juvenilesex offenders and juveniles with seriousmental illness, the Special OffendersUnit was created in 1997, also with


FAMILY DIVISION

Juvenile Branch

financial assistance from the state.Juveniles adjudicated delinquent forsexual assaults and molestation ofchildren are treated in inpatient andoutpatient programs supervised byprobation officers trained to work withthis population. Special supervision isalso provided for offenders with majorpsychiatric disorders.

Firearm Violators Program: Inresponse to ongoing concern overjuvenile shootings and related weaponsand other offenses, an interventionprogram was created by the Court andDHS for juveniles adjudicated delin-quent for possession of firearms. Thisday treatment program is intended toprevent youths found with a gun fromfurther involvement in firearms inci-dents.

Police-Probation Partnership: In1997, the Juvenile Aid Division of thePhiladelphia Police Department and theJuvenile Probation Department began ajoint program in which a probationofficer makes field visits accompaniedby a police officer in a police vehicle.This public safety-oriented programtargets noncompliant, fugitive, andhigh-risk juveniles, who are visited dayand night at homes and neighborhoodhangouts where juveniles congregate —highlighting the Court’s presence in thecommunity.

School-Based Probation Unit: Thisprogram stations probation officers inschools to supervise students on proba-tion. Over a dozen high schools andmiddle schools have resident probationofficers. Through their daily presence,probation officers and school staffmonitor attendance, grades, and behav-ioral problems on site. In November of1997 the School Based Probation Unitwas named as the Juvenile Court

Judges’ Commission “OutstandingCourt-Operated Program” in Pennsylva-nia for its operation at the Michael J.Gavaghan Memorial Village PrepSchool. This school, named for the lateJuvenile Chief Probation Officer, worksintensively with juveniles on probation,some of whom present severe truancyand learning problems.

Juvenile Law Changes – DependencyCombined Goal Change and

Termination of Parental Rights: InMarch of 1996 the Court instituted anew policy for foster children when thegoal of the proceedings is to be changedfrom family reunification to adoption.Rather than scheduling separate eventsfor goal change and termination ofparental rights, these hearings arecombined into one event. This changeeliminated at least one step and atten-dant unnecessary delay, saving anaverage of 18 months in the adoptionprocess. In 1996, 410 adoptions werefinalized, and in 1997, 556 adoptionswere completed — an increase of 36%,or 146 cases. In 1996, parental rightswere terminated for 551 mothers and547 fathers. In 1997, parental rightswere terminated for 898 mothers and886 fathers — increases of approxi-mately 62%.

CASA Volunteers: In 1996, theCourt authorized the introduction ofCourt Appointed Special Advocates(CASA) to assist judges, court-ap-pointed attorneys, and others indetermining the best courses of actionfor proceeding in difficult dependencycases. CASA volunteers undergoextensive pre-service training to qualifyfor certification as special advocates.

Court Improvement Program: InSeptember of 1996, Juvenile Courtreceived a federal grant to evaluate the



needs of juvenile Dependency Courtsthroughout Pennsylvania. The projectinvolves: 1) a statewide survey of Courtand child welfare practitioners; and 2)in selected counties, staff interviews ofofficials, observations of Court opera-tions, and review of Court records.Findings are expected to provide exten-sive recommendations for improvementof the operations of Dependency Courtsin the state.

Juvenile Court Training Center:In 1997 the Court established a trainingcenter including a facility large enoughto accommodate most staff trainingsessions, a law and resources library,and an audiovisual center.

JUVENILE COURT CASELOADS

This text and the accompanying statisti-cal tables and graphs that follow showthat the Juvenile Court Branch disposesof new cases at about the same rate atwhich they are received. In addition toadjudicative and dispositive courtevents, a substantial inventory ofdelinquent and dependent cases receiveperiodic formal review by judges andmasters. Review hearings serve toensure the welfare of the child subjectsof the proceedings, and to monitor the

stability of their familial, neighborhood,and school environments.

In 1996 the delinquent courts dis-posed of 8,506 new cases and conducted27,803 Review Hearings.

In 1996 the dependent courts dis-posed of 4,466 new cases and conducted26,951 Review Hearings. The newcases included 931 cases that weredisposed without a hearing — mostlyincorrigibility cases that were providedsocial service interventions in lieu offiling a petition. In 1996 judges com-mitted 1,483 children to the Departmentof Human Services for foster care and323 children for in-home supervision.

In 1997 the delinquent courts dis-posed of 8,506 new cases and 26,019Review Hearings. The number of 1997new case dispositions was exactly thesame as in 1996 — 8,506 — but slightlymore juveniles were adjudicated delin-quent.

In 1997 the dependent courts dis-posed of 4,911 new cases — an increaseof roughly 10% over 1996 — including848 without hearings. New commit-ments to the Department of HumanServices for foster care increased to1,812 and for in-home supervision to456. Review Hearings decreased to22,651.

Juvenile Branch


FAMILY DIVISION

Juvenile Branch Statistics

Delinquency Cases1996 1997

New Cases Filed 8,539 8,466New Cases Disposed 8,506 8,506

Disposition BreakdownPretrial Adjudicatory YSC Intake

1996 1,511 6,609 3861997 1,457 6,831 218

Dependency Cases1996 1997

New Cases Filed 3,568 4,164New Cases Disposed 4,466 4,911

Disposition BreakdownCourt Hearing REAAP (Diversion)

1996 3,535 9311997 4,063 848

Review Hearings(Cases With Ongoing Court Activity)

Delinquency Dependency

1996 27,803 26,9511997 26,019 22,651

0

2

4

6

8

10

Thou

sand

s

1996 1997

New Cases Filed

New Cases Disposed

Delinquency Cases

(17.8%)

(77.7%)(4.5%)

Pretrial

Adjudicatory

YSC Intake

Disposition Breakdown

0

2

4

6

Thousa

nds

1996 1997

Petitions Filed

Cases Disposed

Dependency Cases

(79.2%)

(20.8%)

Court Hearing

REAPP (Diversion)

Disposition Breakdown

0

10

20

30

Thousa

nds

Delinquency Dependency

1996

1997

Review Hearings


Family Division

Margaret T. McKeown, EsquireCourt Administrator


Operations

Joseph J. HarbsonDirector

Personnel & Facilities

Mary Lou BakerDirector

Operations & CaseProcessing

Daniel F. Madonna, EsquireDirector

Systems & ProgramDevelopment

Joseph C. Kemnik, Jr.Director

Bureau of Accountsand IV-D Compliance

Accounting

Programming

Training/Scheduling

PARENTSMaintenance/

Design

Data ProcessingOperations

PACSES/Troubleshooting

Welfare Intake(643 Lab)

DomesticViolence

EnforcementUnits I & II

Interstate

Field Operations

Court Support

Intake

Pretrial UnitsI, II, III

Client Services

Record Room

AdministrativeServices

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FAMILY DIVISIONDomestic Relations Branch Organization

84


FAMILY DIVISION


OVERVIEW & ORGANIZATION

Under the leadership of Family DivisionAdministrative Judge Paul P. Panepinto,eleven judges of the Court of CommonPleas preside in the Domestic RelationsBranch of the Family Court Division.From their location at 34 South 11th

Street, approximately 300 administra-tive, professional and support staff areorganized into 5 broad groups. TheDomestic Relations Branch CourtAdministrator, Margaret T. McKeown,Esquire, supervises four departments,each headed by a director, as well asgroups of divorce, custody, and supportmasters and others under her directpurview. The four other departmentsare: 1) Personnel and Facilities; 2)Operations and Case Processing; 3)Systems and Program Development; and4) the Bureau of Accounts and IV-DCompliance.

PURPOSE

Personnel endeavor to efficientlyadminister cases involving paternityestablishment, child and spousal sup-port, divorce, child custody, anddomestic violence. Toward that end,the Court utilizes modern case manage-ment principals that encourage earlyresolution through cooperative prepara-tion and agreement, facilitated byspecially appointed masters. Employeesare mindful of the sensitive nature ofthese types of proceedings, and throughtheir endeavors, further guaranteeaccess to justice for a populationespecially in need of that assurance. In1996 and 1997 a total of 122,016pleadings were filed with the DomesticRelations Branch, including 35,803 newcomplaints.

RESPONSIBILITIES

The Court has varied responsibilities inresponding to complaints that can bebroadly categorized under four major,and sometimes interrelated case types:1) Child and Spousal Support; 2) Di-vorce; 3) Child Custody; and 4)Domestic Violence.

Support: Child and spousal supportcase processes have three components:1) establishment of paternity; 2) deter-mination of the support obligation; and3) enforcement.

Paternity: Support cases begin withComplaints for Support filed in theoffice of the Clerk of Family Court or inthe Family Court’s Intake Unit. Forchildren born out of wedlock, establish-ment of the paternity is the first steptoward determining the child supportobligation. Often paternity is estab-lished by agreement of the father.However, if paternity is disputed, theCourt may employ scientific DNAtesting and other evidence to enter ajudicial finding of paternity. The Courtcan enter a support order for a childonly after paternity has been estab-lished.

Obligation: In determining thesupport obligation, Philadelphia isknown as a “three tier” county. De-pending upon the issues and adversarialpostures of the parties involved, thePennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedureprovide for three layers of hearing forComplaints for Support: 1) before pre-trial conference officers, who are notrequired to be attorneys; 2) beforePermanent Hearing Officers who arerequired to be attorneys; and 3) beforeFamily Court Judges of the Court ofCommon Pleas. This tiered systemallows the Domestic Relations branch tomore efficiently process support cases

Margaret T. McKeown, EsquireCourt AdministratorDomestic Relations Branch




and establish support orders. Each ofthe two lower levels of hearing canreduce by negotiation, agreements, andProposed Orders, the number of casesthat might require judicial hearing.

Enforcement: Once the support orderis entered, collection is usually effectedthrough Court-ordered attachment of theincome of the support obligor (theperson responsible to pay). Withincome attachment, a certain amount isregularly deducted from the payer’sincome by their employer or otherincome provider who then forwards it tothe Branch. The Court, in turn, for-wards the payment to the supportobligee (the intended recipient). How-ever, if the support obligor defaults, ortheir source of income refuses to complywith the attachment order, compliance isalso achieved through the efforts ofenforcement conference officers andjudges. Support cases reach the En-forcement Unit either throughcomplaints or when delinquent accountsare identified through regular monitor-ing performed by the Court PARENTScomputer system. The EnforcementUnit uses several administrative mecha-nisms to compel payment. If these fail,Enforcement Unit Conference Officersfile Petitions for Contempt on behalf ofthe obligees, to bring the obligor beforea judge. Petitions for Contempt are also

filed with the Clerk of Family Court byattorneys. In deciding a Petition forContempt, judges can utilize an array ofadministrative and judicial responses toobtain compliance; and may ultimatelyimprison a person found in contempt forhaving failed to comply with a Courtorder.

Divorce: The Domestic RelationsBranch also has jurisdiction over allfacets of divorce proceedings. Theseinclude the entry of divorce decrees andannulments, and economic claimsarising from divorce actions — includ-ing equitable distribution, the divisionof marital property, and alimony issues.The Clerk of Family Court receives anddockets all legal documents relating tothese actions. Permanent DivorceMasters conduct initial hearings oneconomic claims. In cases not resolvedbefore the Permanent Master in Divorce,an appeal may be taken for a de novohearing before a Family Court Judge.

Child Custody: The resolution ofchild custody disputes is one of themore sensitive and emotionally chargedfunctions of the Domestic RelationsBranch. Child custody cases beginsimilarly to support actions: with thefiling of a complaint in the office of theClerk of Family Court, or in the CustodyIntake Unit. In 1997, complaints beganto be referred to the new Custody

Judge Gwendolyn N. Bright

Senior JudgeNicholas A. Cipriani

Judge Levan Gordon

Judge Joyce S. Mozenter Judge Rosalyn K. RobinsonJudge Shelley Robins-New


FAMILY DIVISION


Masters Unit, where conferences orhearings are conducted by CustodyMasters, who are attorneys. UsingBranch Probation Officers’ homeinvestigation reports, and, relying onnegotiation, mediation and fact-finding,Custody Masters make recommendationsto the Court for orders governingcustody, partial custody, and visitationof children. The skill, compassion, andjudgment of Custody Masters and thejudges whom they advise, help to ensurethat the best interests of children andtheir families are served.

Domestic Violence: The DomesticRelations Branch also administersPennsylvania’s Protection From AbuseAct. Under the authority of this Act,Domestic Relations Branch Judges hearcases involving domestic violencebetween family members, or betweenparties who have had an intimaterelationship. In response to Petitionsfor Protection from Abuse filed in theDomestic Violence Unit by attorneys orvictims of abuse, judges can enterorders that bar offenders from anyfurther contact with victims. The Actalso grants judges authority to fashionthe terms of an order in many otherways that they feel can best stop theabuse.

ACHIEVEMENTS

In 1996 and 1997 there were severalimportant developments in the Branchallowing the Court to better utilizeavailable resources to administer thefunctions described above, and there-fore, to broaden access to justice for thepublic that the Branch is intended toserve. These include:

Expansion of the Domestic ViolenceUnit: In order to function properly,families also need to be free from abuseand the threat of abuse. The DomesticViolence Unit files petitions on behalfof victims, so that victims can obtainProtection From Abuse Orders restrain-ing abusers from further violence. In1996 the Branch expanded the DomesticViolence Unit in response to an increas-ing number of abuse complaints. Theunit was moved to larger office space,and four additional case interviewerswere added to the staff. The LatinoDomestic Violence Program was estab-lished in conjunction with staff fromWomen Against Abuse, to assist Spanishspeaking victims in understanding andproceeding through the process.

Establishment of the “643” Process-ing Unit: An important mission of theDomestic Relations Branch is to ensure

Judge Idee C. Fox

Judge Leonard A. Ivanoski

Judge Edward E. Russell Judge Jerome A. ZaleskiJudge Thomas D. Watkins

Judge Ida K. Chen




that children receive financial supportso that the family can emerge fromdependence on Public Assistance. Tobetter accomplish this mission, in Mayof 1996 the Domestic Relations Branchestablished a new unit, the sole functionof which is to process “643” referralsfrom the Department of Public Welfare(DPW). The “643” is the form thatDPW uses to alert the Court to a newwelfare recipient child, one of whoseparents is not residing in the household.Upon receipt of the 643 referral, theCourt can proceed to file a Complaintfor Support against the parent who isabsent from the household. Financialsupport gained from this process allowsmany families to become financiallyindependent, and to enjoy many of thethings in life which intact families takefor granted.

Work Begins Toward ExpandedCustomer Services Unit: By the end of1997, renovations to enable the Bureauof Accounts to move from the first tothe fourth floor of 34 S. 11th Street werenearly complete. Completion of thisconstruction will pave the way fortransformation of the former offices ofthe Bureau of Accounts into a greatlyexpanded Customer Service Unit. Thenew Customer Service Unit will be thegateway through which clients and otherconcerned parties may obtain theinformation they need to address theirDomestic Relations issues. In additionto its former responsibilities relating topayment processing and other financialitems, the expanded unit will communi-cate with individuals and agencies on allother aspects of Domestic Relations.

Also, the Branch has initiated twoother major changes that have improvedthe manner in which the Court’s busi-ness is conducted and increased thenumbers of people served — strengthen-ing the commitment to access to justice:

Change from Blood Draw to BuccalSwab Testing: Increases in the birthrateto unmarried couples have underscoredthe importance of establishing paternityat the beginning of a support action.Formerly, this process had involveddrawing blood from both parents and thechild — an often difficult ordeal. In1996, advances in medical technologyallowed the Court to switch to BuccalSwab Testing — a non-invasive proce-dure that entails gently stroking thelining of the inner cheeks of the partiesto collect cells found in saliva. Thesecells contain the genetic material thatcan be used to determine paternity.Buccal Swab Testing is less painful andtime consuming, and greatly enhancesthe Court’s ability to take the first stepin establishing the support order.

Establishment of Custody Master’sUnit: The Custody Master’s Unit wasestablished in the Spring of 1997 toexpedite processing of custody peti-tions. Similar to the Support Master’sProgram, the Custody Master’s Programis designed to resolve custody issues notrequiring judicial intervention. Thisfrees up precious judicial resources toconduct the custody, support, anddomestic violence hearings wherejudicial action is required. CustodyMasters are attorneys licensed in Penn-sylvania. They take testimony and enterproposed custody orders, as well asorders providing interim relief. Inaddition, Masters make referrals forCustody Mediation, accept Stipulationsof Custody, and issue orders for tele-phone testimony. Depending upon therelief sought, Custody Masters presideover conferences or hearings, pursuantto Administrative Regulation 97-2 andPa.R.C.P. 1915.4-2.

For all initial custody petitions, andfor all cases where sole custody is atissue, the Custody Masters conduct pre-


FAMILY DIVISION


trial conferences to determine thepositions and requests of the parties, aswell as whether any special servicessuch as home studies or mental healthassessments are required. Cases are thenreferred to Judges for full evidentiaryhearings. For cases where petitionersseek to gain partial custody or to modifyvisitation schedules of existing orders,Custody Masters preside over eviden-tiary hearings.

Record Collections for Child Sup-port: The Philadelphia Family Court’sDomestic Relations Division under theleadership of Administrative Judge PaulP. Panepinto and Domestic RelationsCourt Administrator Margaret T.McKeown, Esquire closed 1997 with anew record total of $138,042,009 insupport collections. Support collectionsincreased more than 11.5% from 1996with a total increase of $14,187,823. Incomparison, collections in 1987 totaled$73,761,914, with an increase over thelast ten years of more than 87%, or$64,280,095. The Domestic RelationsDivision continues to explore anddevelop new and innovative proceduresto increase collection and more effi-ciently process the large urban caseload.

DEPARTMENTS

Personnel and Facilities: Under Direc-tor Joseph J. Harbson, Record Roomstaff maintain domestic relations filesand the Administrative Services Unit isresponsible for building security, maildistribution, and supplies. Importantly,Mr. Harbson is a First Judicial DistrictAmericans With Disabilities Act (ADA)Coordinator responding to requests forADA accommodations and increasingaccess to the Court.

Operations and Case Processing:Headed by Mary Lou Baker, the Opera-tions and Case Processing Department

includes among others, a Writ Servers’Unit that performs personal service oflegal process upon parties required toappear in Court, the Parent LocatorService Unit that locates absent parentsin child support, custody, and parentalkidnaping cases, and the Bench WarrantUnit that apprehends individuals againstwhom bench warrants have been lodged.Also included here are the Court Sup-port Unit that provides staff for theCourt rooms and the Interstate Unitwhich processes support establishmentand enforcement complaints when thesupport obligor resides in anotherjurisdiction. For 1996-1997, newdevelopments in this department in-cluded:

Systems and Program Development:The Systems and Program Developmentgroup, directed by Daniel F. Madonna,Esquire, includes the PARENTS Supportand Development Unit to assist users ofthe Court’s PARENTS computer system.This unit is also responsible for thedesign and development of enhance-ments to the PARENTS system. Inaddition, the Data Processing Unitprovides statistical reports, maintainsthe hardware required to run PARENTS,and programs enhancements to thePARENTS system. This Departmentalso houses one of the Biennial ReportAccess to Justice initiatives:

• Establishment of the “643” Process-ing Unit — In 1996, the Systems andProgram Development Department’s“643” Department of Public Welfare(DPW) Unit was formed to ensurethat children receive financial supportso that families can emerge fromdependence on Public Assistance.

Bureau of Accounts and IV-DCompliance: The Bureau of Accountsand IV-D Compliance maintains all




financial records and distributes pay-ments. Aside from the department’sresponsibilities as the financial controlcenter, 1998 will see the department’srole expanded to focus on customerservice through at least one develop-ment:

• Expansion to include a CustomerService Unit — Completion ofrenovations begun during the Bien-nial Report period at 34 S. 11th Streetwill pave the way for transformationof the former offices of the Bureau ofAccounts into a greatly expandedCustomer Service Unit.

Specialized Units: The DomesticRelations Branch also has several otherspecialized units that provide supportservices for the Branch. Among themis a special unit of the PhiladelphiaSheriff’s Department located in theBranch that transports prisoners andprovides courtroom security. In addi-tion, through a cooperative agreementwith the Philadelphia District Attorney’sOffice, the Assistant District Attorneysof the Child Support Enforcement Unitrepresent the Department of PublicWelfare at Court hearings in whichDPW is a party in interest, and in someinterstate cases.

MOVING FROM TODAY

TOWARD TOMORROW

The Branch continuously strives tostreamline and improve its existingprocesses. Refinements and expansionof PARENTS, the Court’s automatedchild support computer system, areongoing. Acting now with an eyetoward the future, the Branch hasestablished a number of standing com-mittees that are charged with evaluatingnew and existing processes and tech-

nologies.The Staff Development and Commu-

nications Committee was formed toimprove staff training, solicit staff inputfor improving Branch operations, andstreamline problem identification andresolution.

The Video Technology Committeehas developed instructional videos forclients to view in the waiting rooms ofthe Custody, Domestic Violence,Interstate, and Pre-Trial units. Throughthe use of role playing and standardlecture, these videos are designed toprovide clients with the informationthey need to understand the process theyare going through, and to understandwhat the Court will require of them inorder to efficiently move their caseforward. This knowledge reduces clientanxiety, and helps to insure fair and justresults.

The Automation Technology Com-mittee was instituted to evaluateexisting technologies in use by theBranch, and explore how newer tech-nologies may be utilized to enhanceproductivity and further the goals andobjectives of the Branch, includingaccess to justice.

The Courthouse Operations Commit-tee is designed to address the concernsof staff and the public that relate to thephysical facility in which the DomesticRelations Branch is located. Theseissues include building security, admis-sions policy and staff morale.


FAMILY DIVISION


Petitions DisposedSupport Custody Dom. Violence Divorce TOTALS

1996 27,102 6,705 13,282 2,125 49,2141997 27,048 6,557 14,730 2,604 50,939

Petitions FiledSupport Custody Dom. Violence Divorce TOTALS

1996 32,746 8,189 13,193 2,920 57,0481997 37,759 8,958 15,167 3,084 64,968

0

20

40

60

80

Thou

sand

s

Support Custody Dom. Violence Divorce TOTALS

1996

1997

Domestic Relations BranchPetitions Filed

0

20

40

60

Thou

sand

s

Support Custody Dom. Violence Divorce TOTALS

1996

1997

Domestic Relations BranchDispositions



Domestic Relations Branch Statistics

Support CollectionsWelfare Non-Welfare Totals

1996 $26,216,048 $97,538,138 $123,854,1861997 $28,176,860 $109,865,149 $138,042,009

Statistical SummaryDispositions

Total By Court By Hearing TotalType of Case Petitions Filed Hearing Officer By Masters Dispositions

Support 32,746 11,441 13,605 2,056 27,102Custody 8,189 4,211 2,494 6,705Domestic Violence 13,193 13,282 13,282Divorce 2,920 2,125 2,125TOTALS 57,048 31,059 16,099 2,056 49,214

0

50

100

150

Milli

ons

Welfare Non-Welfare Total

1996

1997

Domestic Relations BranchSupport Collections

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ORPHANS� COURT

Petrese B. TuckerAdministrative Judge

Orphans� Court Organization ................................................... 94Statistics ................................................................................ 96

IN THIS SECTION

Letter from the Administrative JudgeJudges and employees of the Orphans� Court Division

of the Court of Common Pleas work within the contextof their perceived mandate to ensure that the rights ofthe less fortunate are vigilantly guarded. Together, theywork to protect the interests and carry out the wishes ofthose who may be incapable of doing so themselves:decedents; minors; and incapacitated persons. In doingso, the judiciary, and staff of the Orphans� Court provideaccess for a very special population whose voice mightnot otherwise be heard.

In Pennsylvania, the Orphans� Courts date back morethan 300 years to the days when William Penn himselfheld an Orphans� Court in 1683. Over the interveningcenturies the Court�s responsibilities have evolved dras-tically, but, the aim is still the same: provide access tojustice for vulnerable individuals.

Having been established at the dawn of the Americansystem of justice, thriving today as a champion of judi-cial access, and assuming the mantel of responsibilityfor guaranteeing the future of its myriad clients, theOrphans� Court Division of the Court of Common Pleasrepresents �Access to Justice: A Foundation for the

Future�.



ORGANIZATION

The 1968 amendment to the Pennsylva-nia Constitution of 1874 that delineatedthe Trial and Family Divisions alsoestablished Orphans’ Court as one of thethree divisions of the Court of CommonPleas of the First Judicial District. TheCourt is led by Administrative JudgePetrese B. Tucker. Judge Edmund S.Pawelec and Senior Judge Frank X.O’Brien round out the judicial compli-ment for the Orphans’ Court Division.

PURPOSE

The main purposeof the Orphans’Court is to protectthe personal andproperty rights ofpeople who cannotdo so themselves.This situationmight arise be-cause the person isdeceased, in which case the Court’s roleis to protect as much as possible thedecedent’s wishes regarding the disposi-tion of their assets; including monitoringthe use of assets that are left for chari-table purposes, and to ensure to thegreatest extent possible that the chari-table intent of the testator is carried out.The Court also has jurisdiction to inter-vene if a person is temporarily or perma-nently not competent to make decisionsin their own best interests. These casesoften involve minors and people withcertain disabilities. Under these circum-stances, the role of the judges of theOrphans’ Court is to ensure that the bestinterests of these individuals are pro-tected.

RESPONSIBILITIES

Operating from their location at CityHall, the judges and 12 employees of theCommon Please Court Orphans’ CourtDivision work together to adjudicate,dispose, and administer matters concern-ing the management and distribution ofthe property or estates of decedents,minors and incapacitated persons. Inaddition, the Division conducts proceed-ings involving the supervision anddistribution of property in trust, both

testamentary andinter vivos (be-tween the living)as well as thesettlement ofaccounts ofadministrators,executors, guard-ians, and trustees.The Court alsorules on mattersrelating to inherit-ance and estate

taxation. Appeals from decisions of theRegister of Wills, including so-called“will contests”, are also taken in theOrphans’ Court Division. The Divisionhas jurisdiction over issues involving theadministration and proper application ofproperty committed to charitable pur-poses and held or controlled by a non-profit corporation. Matters relating toinheritance and estate tax issues arehandled by the division.

Approach to Access: A basic tenant ofAmerican jurisprudence is the role ofjudges to exercise their authority torender decisions that are just, and thatprotect the rights of all parties beforethem. This is access to justice in itspurest form. The foundation of justice is

Senior Judge Frank X. O�Brien

Judge Edmund S. Pawelec

A basic tenant of Americanjurisprudence is the role of judges to

exercise their authority to renderdecisions that are just, and thatprotect the rights of all partiesbefore them. This is access to

justice in its purest form


ORPHANS� COURT

that parties should have standing beforethe court based on merit — that no partyshould have an unfair edge simplybecause they are in some manner stron-ger or less disadvantaged than theiropponent. The Orphans’ Court Divisionembraces these ideals by securing accessto justice for persons in dire need: thosewho may lack the capacity to pursuejustice for themselves.

City Hall facade.

ACHIEVEMENTS

Effective August 18, 1997, the Orphans’Court Division and the Trial Divisionentered into a Joint Regulation wherebyOrphans’ Court Judges will handle allpetitions for compromises or wrongfuldeath or survival where minors orincapacitated persons are involved. Thisregulation has had the effect of stream-lining the process thereby resolvingissues of court approval quicker andproviding more efficient access to justicefor parties and their attorneys.



Statistics

ORPHANS� COURTSTATISTICAL SUMMARY

0

200

400

600

800

Audits Guard. Appts. Opinions Inher. Tax Pet. & Misc. Totals

Begin. Inv.1996

End. Inv. 1996

End. Inv. 1997

Audits Guard. Appts. Opinions Inher. Tax Pet. & Misc. Totals

Begin. Inv.1996 284 45 49 36 131 545End. Inv. 1996 175 40 38 6 259 518End. Inv. 1997 181 105 41 6 319 652


ORPHANS� COURT

Statistics

160180

200220

240

260280

300

Begin. Inv.1996 End. Inv. 1996 End. Inv. 1997

Audits

20

40

60

80

100

120


Guardian Appointments

0

10

20

30

40


Inheritance Tax Matters

3638

4042

44

4648

50


Opinions Filed

100

150

200

250

300

350


Petitions & Miscellaneous

500

550

600

650

700


TOTALS

MUNICIPAL COURT

Alan K. SilbersteinPresident Judge

Letter From the President JudgeThe Philadelphia Municipal Court is truly the �People�s Court� ofPhiladelphia. During the 1996 and 1997 calendar years, the Courthandled over 200,000 filings per year and disposed of over 200,000cases per year. I think we can all agree that this is an impressiveaccomplishment.

The reason our Court functions so effectively is threefold: Judgeswho are willing to listen and to be fair; good top and middle levelmanagement; and excellent employees who work together almost asa family in attending to the day-to-day needs of both the public andthe Court. I continue to be very proud of the Philadelphia MunicipalCourt and the service that it renders to the citizenry of our City.

My colleagues on the bench join with me in congratulating all ofour employees for the superb job they did during these past twoyears. We all can and should be proud to work for the fourth largestCourt in the country.

Robert S. BlasiAdministrative Judge

Municipal Court Organization ................................................ 100Civil Division......................................................................... 101Civil Division Statistics ......................................................... 106Criminal Division ................................................................... 108Criminal Division Statistics ................................................... 113

IN THIS SECTION

Letter From the Administrative JudgeMunicipal Court is the indispensable avenue to justice and legal relieffor the vast majority of Philadelphians who experience the formalprocess of the judicial system. We are the only special court in Penn-sylvania which is a court of record and we serve the city through acombination of wide and convenient access to civil proceedings andsubstantial authority in matters of criminal law.

As a jurisdiction for civil cases, low filing fees and pro se filingsprovide tremendous opportunity for any citizens to be empowered. Alllandlord and tenant actions (unlimited jurisdictions) and civil actions inwhich the amount in controversy is 10,000 dollars or less fall withinour responsibility. Municipal Court also handles numerous City filingsincluding all Code Enforcement. All told, the civil disputes and com-plaints which comprise the overwhelming volume of encounters thataverage citizens have with litigation are the business of our court andour sense of duty has been heightened by a profound appreciation forthis common experience with the law.

As for criminal proceedings, jurisdiction for preliminary arraign-ments and hearings, bail decisions and trials for offenses carryingsentences of up to five years have made us the necessary judicialforum for as many as 60,000 cases in a year and yet we have retainedthe confidence of the community in our capacity to dispense justice ina manner that secures the rights of everyone.

The combined civil and criminal cases we preside over each yearapproach totals unimagined when Municipal Court was formed in1968. We have disciplined ourselves to face this enormous responsi-bility and have gathered a staff as competent and unselfishly dedicatedas any serving a large jurisdiction in the country. We are thankful fortheir extraordinary effort, for their steadfast insistence on regardingtheir work as a vocation and for their determination to help us meetthe challenges which lie ahead.


MUNICIPAL COURT

Organization

OVERVIEW

The Philadelphia Municipal Court wasestablished through the 1968 amendmentto the Constitution of the Commonwealthof Pennsylvania that also introduced thethree Divisions of the Court of CommonPleas. Municipal Court is a court oflimited jurisdiction with 25 judges.

Under the leadership of President JudgeAlan K. Silberstein and AdministrativeJudge Robert S. Blasi, two SupervisingJudges manage the major Municipal Courtcomponents: the Criminal and CivilDivisions. The non-judicial managementteam is headed by Court AdministratorRichard Simpson. The Civil and CriminalDivisions are each run by a Deputy CourtAdministrator.

Municipal Court jurisdiction extends tocriminal offenses (other than summarytraffic offenses) punishable by a term ofimprisonment not exceeding five years.Civil action jurisdiction is limited toclaims not exceeding $10,000.

The Philadelphia Municipal Court isthe only special court of record in theCommonwealth. While there are nostatutory provisions for jury trials, appealsmay be taken for trials de novo in theCourt of Common Pleas.

Municipal Court is a compact, well-organized, and high volume front lineCourt geared toward participation byaverage citizens. Interaction with thealmost 200 Municipal Court employeesreveals that they are committed to servingthe public, and importantly, serving well.

Richard M. SimpsonCourt Administrator


CIVIL DIVISIONMUNICIPAL COURT


Each year, the Philadelphia MunicipalCourt Civil Division receives anaverage of 80,000 filings — SmallClaims, Landlord/Tenant, Public Nui-sance Complaints, and CodeEnforcement actions. Managed by thePresident and Administrative Judges,the Civil Division lines of authority arefurther delineated to include the Honor-able Barbara S. Gilbert as SupervisingJudge. Managers of this division reportdirectly to the Deputy Court Adminis-trator, Patricia R. McDermott, who inturn serves under Court AdministratorRichard M. Simpson and the Supervis-ing and Administrative and PresidentJudges. They are also affected by thedecisions of the First Judicial DistrictCourt Administrator.

Eight major branches comprise theCivil Division organizational structure:1) First Filing Unit; 2) Civil Listings; 3)Data Processing; 4) Writ Service; 5)Dispute Resolution Program; 6) Court-room Operations (including Civil TrialCommissioners); 7) Court Recorders; 8)Judgment and Petitions.

The Civil Division is presentlystaffed with approximately 60 full timeemployees, more than 100 Writ Servers,5 Arbitrators, and 25 Mediators. Asampling of the full time employeeclassifications would include Directors,Court Administrative Officers, TrialCommissioners, Court Recorders, CourtReporters, Cashiers, Court Officers,Court Order Processing Clerks, LegalClerks, Clerk Typists, Clerical Assis-tants, and Messengers.

For each year of the Biennium, anaverage of 80,000 cases were filed andmore than 76,000 cases were disposed inMunicipal Court’s Civil Division.

PURPOSE

Civil Division accessibility is high-lighted by affordable and efficientoperations. The mission of the Divisionis to guarantee that parties are affordedthe opportunity to reasonably settledisputes. The aim is to safeguardfairness while offering options toexpeditiously resolve cases beforejudges in courtrooms or through media-tion or other alternative forums.

RESPONSIBILITIES

This section broadly summarizes Mu-nicipal Court civil case processing.More detailed information concerningspecific operational components ispresented below under the heading“Departments”. Contact with theMunicipal Court First Filing Unit is thefirst step in the generation of MunicipalCourt civil cases. Here, prospectivelitigants are assisted by staff interview-ers who help to complete pleadings andprovide clients with typed versions thatindicate hearing date, time and location.Fees are charged for the initiation ofcases and service of complaints todefendants. Next, claims are forwardedto the Civil Listings Unit for retentionuntil the court date. Meanwhile, claimforms and copies are disseminated toinvolved operational departmentsallowing them to concurrently proceedwith their respective functions — WritService employees serve notice, andData Processing personnel recordpertinent data in the automated com-

Patricia R. McDermottDeputy Court AdministratorCivil Division


MUNICIPAL COURT CIVIL DIVISION

puter systems. After the hearing datelitigants can proceed to the Judgmentand Petitions Unit to follow-up on Writsof Execution or Petitions to Open.

ACHIEVEMENTS

Examination of annual figures for the1996-1997 biennium reveals a slight rise(2%) in Small Claims and Landlord/Tenant filings from about 38,000 in CY1996, to 38,918in CY 1997.However, CodeEnforcement datashow a dramaticincrease of 31%,or 21,300 filingsfrom the 69,000actions filed inCY 1996 to the90,300 recordedin CY 1997. Thenumbers of CodeEnforcement dispositions mirroredfilings — 69,400 in CY 1996 and 91,000in CY 1997.

The Dispute Resolution Programfosters access through encouraging andfacilitating agreements. This approachallows more parties to proceed towardresolution in a shorter time. Agreementrates are impressive: approximately 75%

for Small Claims Cases, 80% for Hous-ing Cases, and 70% through CriminalMediation.

For calendar years 1996 and 1997, thefollowing averages were recorded: 1)total number of cases filed — 160,000;2) cases adjudicated — 150,093; 3)cases disposed through Dispute Resolu-tion — 2,250; and 4) active caseinventory — 22,300. The number ofappeals perfected on Municipal Court

Civil Trialstotaled 1,273.

In attending topublic participa-tion in the judicialprocess, the CivilDivision assistedwith ADA accom-modations for over1,500 clientsduring the bien-nium.

DEPARTMENTS

First Filing Unit: The First Filing Unitmanages a variety of cases includingSmall Claims within the jurisdictionallimit of $10,000, Landlord/Tenantmatters with unlimited jurisdiction, andCity Tax Cases and Code EnforcementComplaints. Some procedures aredesigned to assist prospective plaintiffswithout counsel. Interviewers prepare

Judge Frank T. Brady

Judge Linda F. Anderson

Judge Georganne V. Daher Judge James M. DeLeon Judge Teresa Carr Deni Judge Thomas F. Gehret

The Dispute Resolution Program fostersaccess through encouraging and

facilitating agreements . . . Agreementrates are impressive: approximately

75% for Small Claims Cases, 80% forHousing Cases, and 70% through

Criminal Mediation.

Judge Matthew F. Coppolino


CIVIL DIVISION

complaints and clerical employees typeappropriate information into the courttranscript. This personalized pro seservice is thought to be unique to courtsnationwide. Attorney filings are alsoadministered by employees of thisdepartment, as are petitions to proceed“in forma pauperis” (petitions to pro-ceed without assuming the burden ofcosts). In addition, First Filing cashiersreceive fees generated by the highvolume of cases filed in MunicipalCourt. Requests for ADA accommoda-tions are also processed here.

Municipal Court employees aim to bereadily accessible and helpful. TheFirst Filing Unit employees contributein the effort to achieve these goals byaccepting mail-in filings and trainingInterviewers in Dispute Resolutionskills to mediate Small Claims andHousing disputes.

Civil Listings: Civil Listings Depart-ment workers coordinate and schedulehearings in civil courtrooms of Munici-pal Court. This unit also controls Cityagency schedules and pleadings. A casemanagement department vital to themaintenance and control of courtroomactivities, Civil Listings monitors thedocket to ensure that each courtroom isassigned an appropriate number ofcases per day. For instance, complexprotracted matters receive special

attention and time allocations forscheduling purposes. In this manner,the Department maintains a balancedcalendar across available courtroomsand so makes optimal use of resources.Additionally, the Civil Listing unitprocesses correspondence with litigantsand notifies parties of continuances andlistings. Municipal Court judges,administrators and staff work coopera-tively to continue to prevent backlogs.Case inventories are followed by track-ing each case in the system.

Data Processing: Data ProcessingDepartment employees post pertinentcase information, including disposition,into the mainframe computer. Addition-ally, they perform checks to maintainquality control. Data are made avail-able to personnel to aid in their effortsto help litigants. Some of this informa-tion is also used by title and creditagencies. On an ongoing basis, depart-ment employees and managersimplement system upgrades and honetheir technology skills to increase theefficiency of service delivery.

Writ Service: Writ servers work toexpediently serve notice to litigants.Their efforts serve to aid litigants andpromote case progress leading to moretimely conclusions. The unit servesmore than 100,000 writs annually.Notices of civil filings and Private

Judge William A. King, Jr. Judge Morton KraseJudge Lydia Y. Kirkland

Judge Gwendolyn Conway

Senior JudgeMartin W. Bashoff

Supervising JudgeBarbara S. Gilbert

Judge Francis P. Cosgrove



Criminal Complaints are executed byemployees of this department.

Dispute Resolution Program: TheDispute Resolution Program is an earlyintervention case management systemproviding alternatives to more lengthyand costly Court proceedings. Theprogram has two broad functions: 1)mediation of Housing, Small Claimsand Private Criminal Complaints; and 2)arbitration of Private Criminal Com-plaints. The operation sees over 2,000cases per year. Mediation sessions aremoderated by volunteers, law studentsand staff members. Arbitration casesthough, are conducted by attorneysappointed by the Court. The resultshave been noteworthy: the over-allagreement rate is approximately 75%.The Dispute Resolution success rate hasled the United States Office of Person-nel Management to adopt the program asa training model for the federal govern-ment.

Courtroom Operations: MunicipalCourt Civil cases are heard at 34 S. 11thStreet. Courtroom Operations employ-ees direct the conduct of cases andprovide step by step guidance forparticipants in courtroom proceedings.They confirm that all parties are presentand maintain the integrity and safety ofthe courtroom participants. Litigantsand other personnel with problems areassisted by Court Officers. Tipstaves inthe Civil Division are responsible forthe operation of metal detectors andrecording daily statistical data.

Court Recorders: Civil suit testimonyis preserved with an audio tape systemmanaged by Court Recorders. Record-ers are present during proceedingsconducted before judges. Recorders

tape testimony elicited in courtrooms.Later, the tapes may be transcribed intotyped format. Copies of tapes areretained for three years.

Trial Commissioners: For improvedcase management, Civil Trial Commis-sioners are vested with the authority tooccupy the bench and dispose cases thatmight not warrant judicial determina-tions. Trial Commissioners glean outappropriate cases for their deliberationand eventual disposition through agree-ment. This arrangement enables judgesto focus their attention on contestedmatters, relieving litigants of unneces-sary and time-consuming delays.

Judgment and Petitions: Employeesof the Judgment and Petitions unithandle civil division post-trial motions.They advise and assist pro se litigantsand parties represented by counsel toguide them through the filing processesfor post-trial petitions and motions.These filings involve the enforcement ofmoney judgments and judgments forpossession in housing matters. Dutieshave evolved and expanded in scope toaddress increasing numbers of a widen-ing variety of petitions and motions.With the Court priding itself on devel-oping easy access for all litigants, thisunit plays an integral role in making thejudicial process manageable and under-standable.

Once cases have been decided, thedepartment is also responsible to seethat agreements are indeed executedproperly by allowing for parties to fileAffidavits for Breach. Writs of Revivaland Appeals to Common Pleas Court arealso kept by this unit. Through theseand other functions, the Judgment and


CIVIL DIVISION

Petitions office may be viewed as theoffice of final resort — ensuring, to thegreatest extent possible, that justice isbeing served.

LINKAGES WITH OTHER COURTS

AND PROGRAMS

The Municipal Court Civil Divisioninterfaces with the Prothonotary’sOffice when appeals are taken to Com-mon Pleas Court. Municipal Courtemployees also work with DistrictCourts of other counties for transfers ofJudgments.

ACCESS TO JUSTICE INITIATIVES

Project Self: During the past two yearsMunicipal Court has participatedthrough the Big Sister Program ofPhiladelphia in “Project Self”. Thisprogram places disabled high schoolstudents in Court jobs during summer

vacations. Students have the opportu-nity to gain valuable work experiencewhile Court personnel learn about theneeds and skills of the disabled commu-nity. The program has engenderedgreater understanding and generatedmutually rewarding experiences for bothstudents and Court personnel alike.

Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA): Municipal Court ADA accom-modations procedures also include theprovision of telephonic hearings from acourtroom setting, and the supply oftape recorded testimony and proceed-ings. In addition, staff assist litigants byfacilitating filing via the U.S. Mail.

Adjustment of Jurisdictional Limit:During calendar year 1996, the Munici-pal Court jurisdictional limit wasincreased to $10,000. This movebroadened access, and benefitted unrep-resented and other litigants filing civilaction in Small Claims Court.



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Thou

sand

s

Code Enforcement Landlord & Tenant Small Claims Pvt. Crim. Totals

Begin. Inv. 1/1/96

End. Inv. 1/1/97

End. Inv. 1/1/98

Municipal Court/Civil DivisionSummary

Statistics

Year to Date 1997Avail. for Received Avail. for

Disposition During Total to be Total Disposition Increase01/01/97 Period Disposed Disposed 01/01/98 (Decrease)

Code Enforcement 12,120 92,128 104,248 89,986 14,262 2,142Landlord & Tenant 1,858 25,321 27,179 25,249 1,930 72Small Claims 8,411 47,103 55,514 48,361 7,153 (1,258)Private Criminal 2,371 2,313 4,684 3,775 909 (1,426)TOTALS 24,760 166,865 191,625 167,371 24,254 (506)

Year to Date 1996Avail. for Received Avail. for

Disposition During Total to be Total Disposition Increase01/01/96 Period Disposed Disposed 01/01/97 (Decrease)

Code Enforcement 11,958 69,776 81,734 69,614 12,120 162Landlord & Tenant 2,138 24,461 26,599 24,741 1,858 (280)Small Claims 8,510 55,639 64,149 55,738 8,411 (99)Private Criminal 2,004 3,257 5,261 2,890 2,371 367TOTALS 24,610 153,133 177,743 152,983 24,760 150


CIVIL DIVISION

Statistics

11500

12000

12500

13000

13500

14000

14500

Begin. Inv. 1/1/96 End. Inv. 1/1/97 End. Inv. 1/1/98

Code Enforcement

1800

1900

2000

2100

2200


Landlord & Tenant

7000

7500

8000

8500

9000


Small Claims

500

1000

1500

2000

2500


Private Criminal Complaints

24200

24400

24600

24800


Totals


MUNICIPAL COURT CRIMINAL DIVISION

Kathleen M. RaponeDeputy Court AdministratorCriminal Division


Management of the Municipal CourtCriminal Division, like its Civil coun-terpart, is overseen by AdministrativeJudge Robert Blasi and President JudgeAlan K. Silberstein. And, similarly,the lines of management for the Crimi-nal Section include a Supervising Judgeposition — here occupied by JudgeLouis J. Presenza. Eight majorbranches comprise the CriminalDivision’s organizational structure: 1)Criminal Administration; 2) Arraign-ment Court (Bail Commissioners); 3)Criminal Listings; 4)Summary Coding;5) Courtroom Operations; 6) CourtReporters; 7) Private Criminal Com-plaints and 8) Emergency Protectionfrom Abuse Unit.

The Criminal Division of the Phila-delphia Municipal Court receives,processes, and disposes of more than70,000 criminal offenses per year(22,000 felonies; 27,000 misdemeanors;19,000 summary offenses and 2,000private criminal complaints). Forcalendar years 1996 and 1997, thefollowing averages were recorded: 1)total number of criminal proceedingsfiled — 70,000; 2) criminal cases disposed— 68,000; and 3) active criminal caseinventory — 14,000.

The Office of the Criminal DeputyCourt Administrator is charged withoverseeing the non-judicial operationsof the Criminal Division. KathleenRapone, Deputy Court Administrator forthe Criminal Division, serves underCourt Administrator Richard Simpson,the Supervising Judge of the CriminalDivision, the Administrative Judge, andthe President Judge of the PhiladelphiaMunicipal Court.

Seventy-five employees in the criminaldivision are responsible for schedulingand processing and scheduling criminalproceedings among 21 criminal court-rooms. Personnel classifications includeBail Commissioners, Trial Commissioners,Court Reporters, Directors, Supervisors,General Tipstaves, Administrative andClerical support staff.

PURPOSE

The Criminal Division of the PhiladelphiaMunicipal Court provides service to thepublic, the Bar, criminal justice agenciesand the judiciary. In matters concerningliberty, safety and property, special careis taken to ensure fair, compassionate,and professional treatment. CriminalDivision objectives are identified asfollows: 1) to advance access to facilities,information, service and justice; 2) toprovide the public, the bar, criminaljustice agencies, and the judiciary withenthusiastic and competent servicegeared toward prompt, and timely pro-cessing of criminal matters; 3) to equipemployees with the tools, training andsupport needed for their personal growthrelated to continuing efforts to improveservices; and 4) to work collaborativelywith the public, the bar, criminal justiceagencies and the judiciary to create adynamic organization in the pursuit ofgreater excellence in service.

RESPONSIBILITIES

Criminal proceedings are initiated byarrest without warrant, arrest warrants,complaints filed by the DistrictAttorney’s Office, private criminalcomplaints, and summary citationsissued by law enforcementagencies.(See Rule 6000 Pa.R.Crim.P.governing Municipal Court)


CRIMINAL DIVISION

Adult misdemeanor and felony arrestsand certain serious juvenile matterscharged by the District Attorney’s Officeare scheduled for preliminary arraignmentfor formal bail proceedings. A principalgoal of bail is to ensure court appear-ances with due consideration for commu-nity safety. Upon arraignment, defen-dants are scheduled for misdemeanortrials and felony preliminary hearingsbefore Municipal Court Judges. Caseflow management is a determining factorin listing practices. Held-for-court felonymatters are scheduled for arraignment atthe Common Pleas Court level, while“remands” and misdemeanor trials arewithin the jurisdiction of MunicipalCourt. Felony preliminary hearings arelisted for dates within 3 to 10 days fromthe day of the preliminary arraignment.Misdemeanor cases are generally ar-ranged for 30 to 45 days from arraignmentto provide time for discovery. CriminalListings systems incorporate daily policeworking squad practices to minimizepolice overtime that may be required fortestimony. As is true in many busyorganizations, routine clerical functionsare the mainstay in continuing effectiveoperations.

ACHIEVEMENTS

In CY 1996 and 1997, an average of 48,000felony and misdemeanor cases, uponarrest, were charged by the PhiladelphiaDistrict Attorney’s Office and arraignedby Bail Commissioners in MunicipalCourt. Further, 19,000 non-trafficsummary citations (retail theft, underagedrinking, disorderly conduct, etc.) wereissued by law enforcement agencies, and2,000 private criminal complaints wereapproved by the District Attorney’sOffice and the Court. These producedapproximately 68,000 dispositions

including felonies held for court, misde-meanor trials, diversion program disposi-tions, and criminal arbitration/mediation.

For CY 1996, 21,062 arraignments wereconducted for felony matters, increasingslightly to 22,323 in 1997. In CY 1996,22,641 misdemeanor cases were arraigned,with CY 1997 showing a 17% climb to26,572 misdemeanor cases.

DEPARTMENTS

Bail Commissioners (PreliminaryArraignment Courtroom): In accordancewith Act 187 of 1984, Bail Commission-ers are quasi-judicial officers of theMunicipal Court. Bail Commissionerspreside in the Preliminary ArraignmentCourtroom that operates 24 hours perday, 365 days a year. Commissionersare neutral authorities whose powersinclude administering Oaths andAffirmations, presiding at preliminaryarraignments, setting bail consistentwith pretrial release guidelines, con-ducting hospital arraignments, issuingcriminal complaints, appointing coun-sel, scheduling court events, and issuingarrest and search and seizure warrants.Criminal Legal Clerks staffing court-rooms are responsible for the origina-tion of criminal transcripts. Clerks’myriad duties include initial case flowmanagement for all first listing felony andmisdemeanor charges. In 1996, a videoarraignment system was implemented toconduct proceedings from a centrallocation which, through state of the arttechnology, is linked to five remotegeographic locations throughout the Cityof Philadelphia. In 1997, the PreliminaryArraignment Reporting System (PARS)was introduced to electronically transmitdata from arrest through arraignment.(See Rule 4000 Pa.R.Crim.P. governingspecific Bail Rules)



Criminal Listings: The primaryobjective of the Criminal ListingsDepartment is to maintain misdemeanortrial and felony preliminary hearingcourtroom calendars for 18 criminalcourtrooms. The department administersa master calendaring system and sched-ules approximately 50,000 cases eachyear. In addition to scheduling cases, theCriminal Listings department responds torequests for interpreter services, pro-cesses listing notices, prepares writs andstatistical reports, and interacts with thepublic, the bar, the judiciary and othercriminal justice agencies.

Criminal Coding: Employees of theCriminal Coding department process,translate into electronic code, andschedule non-traffic summary citationsissued by various law enforcementagencies in Philadelphia. Many sum-mary offenses, like disorderly conduct,prostitution, graffiti, and underagedrinking, are quality-of-life issues. Theunit processes approximately 20,000citations per year. Additionally, specialprograms that are monitored through theunit include Night Court, alternativesummary diversion programs, andgraffiti court. On an ongoing basis, theunit assists community members, thejudiciary, and criminal justice agencieswith case flow information.

Courtroom Operations: Tipstavesassigned to the criminal courtrooms arekey to effectively maintain control incourtrooms that are located in theCriminal Justice Center and policedistricts in Philadelphia. Tipstaves areresponsible for coordinating high-volume trial and preliminary hearinglists for presiding judges. Additionally,Tipstaves provide courtroom security,swear in witnesses, mark evidence, guardentrances and exits, screen packages,enforce rules, and maintain courtroomdecorum. Tipstaves also report statisti-cal data for case flow management. Inpreliminary hearing rooms, Tipstaves actas clerks when they prepare necessarydocumentation for court proceedings.Two staff interpreters report to the Chiefof Courtroom Operations supportingefforts toward the provision of equalaccess to justice. Moreover, staffservices are augmented by per dieminterpreters and a language line systemfor criminal interpreting operationalneeds.

Court Reporters: Court Reportersrecord verbatim testimony for criminalpreliminary hearings and trials inMunicipal Court. Court Reporters areassigned to preliminary hearing court-rooms where conditions for note produc-

Judge WilliamAustin Meehan, Jr.

Judge Ronald B. Merriweather

Judge John O�Grady Judge Louis G. F. RetaccoSupervising JudgeLouis G. Presenza

Judge Eric L. Lillian


CRIMINAL DIVISION

tion activities are specifically defined.Reporter transcription activities aregoverned by court rules (Pa.R.Crim.P.9030and 6012). Reporters produce notes oftestimony for 25,000 preliminary hearingsyearly. Notes for trials are produced onan “as needed” basis.

Private Criminal Complaints: ThePrivate Criminal Complaint unit pro-cesses citizen complaints when crimesare alleged without police arrest.Complaints are approved by the DistrictAttorney’s Office and Municipal CourtJudges. The majority of private crimi-nal complaints involve disputes betweenfamily members or neighbors. Fre-quently, misdemeanor charges includesimple assault, terroristic threats,harassment, and theft by deception.Increasingly, insurance fraud claims aresettled at the arraignment stage beforeTrial Commissioners. Other charges arediverted to arbitration or compulsorymediation to try to resolve issues or,when accord is not reached, these casesare scheduled before judges for disposi-tion.

Emergency Protection from Abuse:The Emergency Protection from Abuseunit operates during non-traditionalbusiness hours for emergency petitionsonly. The unit is staffed by law-trainedmasters who conduct ex parte hearingsand review petitions to determine if

Judge Edward G. Mekel

Judge Marsha H. Neifield

Judge Felice Rowley StackJudge Harvey W. Robbins Judge Craig M. Washington

orders should be granted in accordancewith the Protection from Abuse Act.Often, when emergency petitions aredenied, cases are referred to the AbuseAssistance Unit of the Domestic Rela-tions Branch of the Family Division ofthe Court of Common Pleas. Nonetheless,this unit issues approximately 4,000emergency petitions annually for even-tual review by Family Division Judges.

ACCESS TO JUSTICE INITIATIVES

Municipal Court works collaborativelywith other courts in the First JudicialDistrict to provide justice to citizensseeking interaction with the Court. TheCourt continues to furnish the publicwith broadened access to justice in atimely, courteous and effective manner.With an eye toward future gains in theseareas, several programs have beeninstituted.

Night Court: In 1996, the Courtintroduced Philadelphia communities tothe Night Court concept, where judgesand staff voluntarily bring Court pro-ceedings into neighborhoods to provideimmediate hearings involving quality-of-life crimes.

Arbitration: Municipal Court providesarbitration for private criminal complaintsto address underlying issues in order toprevent their escalation into criminal

Judge Seamus P. McCaffrey



complaints. As a result, parties areafforded mutually acceptable, usuallybeneficial outcomes.

Treatment Court: More recently, theCriminal Division, under the leadership ofthe supervising judge, implemented aTreatment Court initiative to deal withone of the underlying causes of criminalinvolvement: drug addiction. Theestablishment of Treatment Court, a firstfor the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,represents a new effort to bring thecriminal justice and substance abusetreatment systems to bear more effec-tively on the substance-abusing criminaljustice population. The approach relieson Criminal Court involvement andsupervision in accordance with soundtreatment practices, regard for publicsafety, and due process of law.

LINKAGES WITH OTHER

COURTS AND PROGRAMS

Municipal Court maintains a closerelationship with the Court of CommonPleas in case processing and scheduling.External criminal justice agencies, police,district attorney, public defender, pris-ons, etc. play major roles from arrestthrough arraignment proceedings. Theircooperative interactivity with the Courtcontributes to continuing efficiency fromthe inception of a case through finaldisposition on all levels. In developingand implementing new programs andinitiatives, criminal division personnelhave also cultivated relationships withother City agencies including theMayor’s Office, the Managing Director’sOffice, the Health Department, andtreatment providers.

Criminal Justice Center, 11th Floor hallway


CRIMINAL DIVISION

0

5

10

15

20

Thou

sand

s

Prelim. Hrgs.Trials

Summary Proc.Pvt. Crim. Compl.

TOTALS

Begin. Inv. 1/1/96

End. Inv. 1/1/97

End. Inv. 1/1/98

Municipal Court/Criminal DivisionSummary

Statistics

Year to Date 1996Avail. for Received Avail. forDisposition During Total to be Total Disposition Increase01/01/96 Period Disposed Disposed 01/01/97 (Decrease)

Preliminary Hearings 2,466 21,062 23,528 21,081 2,447 (19)

Trials 6,028 22,641 28,669 22,733 5,936 (92)

Summary Proceedings 1,519 19,307 20,826 19,339 1,487 (32)

Private Crim. Compl. 2,004 3,257 5,261 2,890 2,371 367

Total 12,017 66,267 78,284 66,043 12,241 224

Year to Date 1997Avail. for Received Avail. forDisposition During Total to be Total Disposition Increase01/01/96 Period Disposed Disposed 01/01/97 (Decrease)

Preliminary Hearings 2,447 22,323 24,770 21,461 3,309 862

Trials 5,936 26,572 32,508 23,847 8,661 2,725

Summary Proceedings 1,487 19,052 20,529 18,802 1,737 250

Private Crim. Compl. 2,371 2,313 4,684 3,775 909 (1,426)

Total 12,241 70,260 82,501 67,885 14,616 2,375



2400

2600

2800

3000

3200

3400

Tho

usan

ds

Begin. Inv. 1/1.96 End. Inv. 1/1/97 End. Inv. 1/1/98

Preliminary Hearings

Preliminary Summary PrivateHearings Trials Proceedings Crim. Complaints TOTALS

Begin. Inv. 1/1.96 2,466 6,028 1,519 2,004 12,017End. Inv. 1/1/97 2,447 5,936 1,487 2,371 12,241End. Inv. 1/1/98 3,309 8,661 1,737 909 14,616

5

6

7

8

9

Thou

sands


Trials

1400

1500

1600

1700

1800

Tho

usan

ds


Summary Proceedings

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Tho

usan

ds


Private Criminal Complaints

11

12

13

14

15

Thou

sand

s


Totals

Statistics


TRAFFIC COURT

Frank LittlePresident Judge

Letter from the President JudgeMy official life has always been tempered by my personal belief inthe system and the rights of individuals to participate in that systemin a meaningful way. For those reasons, I am proud of the judgesand employees of the Philadelphia Traffic Court because they are thestandard bearers � the foundation � for most of Philadelphia�scitizens� access to justice.

In their endeavors to deliver expedient but fair outcomes to casesarising from moving violations, the Traffic Court Judiciary, Adminis-tration, and staff provide an array of services to allow the publicgreater access everyday. In support of access, Traffic Court per-sonnel listen to the customers� cases, provide information andguidance, collect and disburse money from fines, and supply en-forcement to further ensure public safety. Society at large benefitsfrom safer streets, and in that way, even those people not havingbusiness before the Court are granted a measure of access tojustice.

Together, we hope to continue our good work and make evenmore improvements. Our goal is, relying on the foundations of thepast and present, to go on to widen access into the future.


Bernice DeAngelisAdministrative Judge

Letter from the Administrative JudgePhiladelphia Traffic Court judges and employees are proud to berepresentatives of the First Judicial District�s leader in the num-ber of customers served. As the average citizen�s first, andperhaps only encounter with the judicial system, Traffic Courtprovides more access to more people than any other Court of theFirst Judicial District.

During the 1996-1997 Biennium, numerous improvementswere conceived, developed, and initiated to help more of citizensof Philadelphia participate more effectively in the judicial pro-cess. Physical plant upgrades and staffing improvements tocustomer services resulted in better surroundings and fasterservice for motorists appearing at the Court. The result: morecitizens served more efficiently. Extended hours, includingSaturday sessions, and implementation of Night Court affordedclients with jobs and other responsibilities greater opportunitiesto conduct their business with the Court.

Technological improvements to the information services sys-tems, which are continuing apace with the wave of current andfuture automated innovations, also serve to permit more peopleaccess through speedier case processing. Relatedly, streamlinedcase processing techniques, policies, and procedures complimentadvances in other areas.

Here, citizens can, and most often do, plead their case directlyto judges. All the while, members of the Traffic Court Bench,Administration, and staff continue in their endeavor to provideindividualized, personal services. Our judges and employeeshave established a firm footing while looking to ongoing andfuture improvements. In the quest to further ensure publicsafety, while dispensing justice with ever increasing numbers ofcustomers, the First Judicial District Traffic Court truly exempli-fies the provision of �Access to Justice: A Foundation for theFuture.�

Traffic Court Organization .................................................... 119Statistics .............................................................................. 124

IN THIS SECTION

Copy provided inMac format


TRAFFIC COURT

Organization Chart

Bernice DeAngelis

Administrative Judge

Michael Henkel

Director

Enforcement Services

Cynthia Marelia

Court Administrator

Thomas Crescenzo

Director

Citation Management &

Court Operations

Patricia Martin

Director

Financial Controls

Enforcement Services

Courtroom Staff

Files Lockbox

Finance Control

Payment Adjuster

Customer Service/CashierListings

Citation Control

Mailroom

Frank Little

President Judge

Jan Hood

Deputy Court

Administrator

Payment Enforcement

facilities


OVERVIEW AND ORGANIZATION

Judges and employees of the TrafficCourt of the First Judicial Districtoperate from its location at 800 SpringGarden Street, Philadelphia. Governedby statute, administrative orders, andthe Pennsylvania Rules of CriminalProcedure pertaining to Procedures inSummary Cases, the employees in theBranch receive and process matterspertaining to moving motor vehicleviolations.

During the biennium, the TrafficCourt benefitted from the leadership ofBernice DeAngelis, AdministrativeJudge. President Judge Frank Little wasappointed early in 1998, after the 1996-1997 Biennial Report period. Both aremembers of the First Judicial DistrictAdministrative Governing Board.Reporting to them are Court Administra-tor Cynthia Marelia and Jeanette Hood,Deputy Court Administrator. The non-judicial management team also includesthree Directors who oversee varioussupervisors and their unit staffs in theTraffic Court Administrative structure.The three directorships are: 1) Enforce-ment Services; 2) Citation Managementand Courtroom Operations; and 3)Financial Control.

Traffic Court has eight judges withover 100 non-judicial employees work-ing in administration, administrativestaff, management, court officer, cleri-cal, and building services positions.

Traffic Court receives and recordsvirtually all filings concerning movingviolations charged within in the Countyof Philadelphia. In CY 1996, 246,620citations were received and processed.In CY 1997, that number increased bymore than 118,000, or 48%, to total$364,823 filings.

PURPOSE

Traffic Court is a summary courtcharged by the Pennsylvania Legislaturewith the processing of all movingviolations issued pursuant to Title 75 ofthe Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes,and all City ordinances pertaining toTitle 75, following procedures as setforth in Chapter 50 of the PennsylvaniaRules of Criminal Procedure, and guidedin part by local ordinances. The TrafficCourt is: 1) the filing repository for allmoving violations actions in the FirstJudicial District of Pennsylvania; 2) theadjudicative and dispositive agent ofthose proceedings; 3) with support, theenforcement arm for dispositions,statute and rules; and 4) a receiver anddisperser of revenues. Traffic Courtpersonnel fulfill the roles of the Protho-

Traffic Court Mission Statement“We strive to accomplish two important goals:

1) to utilize all reasonable, necessary and available measuresto insure compliance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and

2) to preserve the safety of our citizenry.”

Cynthia MareliaCourt Administrator


TRAFFIC COURT

notary, the Clerk of Quarter Sessions,and the Sheriff’s Department as wellas the standard Court functionsnormally associated with other Courtsand Divisions of the FJD.

RESPONSIBILITIES

As the average citizen’s first, andoften only interaction with the justicesystem, and, considering the enor-mously high volume of customers assuggested by issuance statisticsabove, the Traffic Court’s judges andemployees are committed to, and evermindful of, public service and “ac-cess to justice”.

Traffic Court personnel receivecitations from the Philadelphia Policeand maintain accurate records reflect-ing citations, customer histories, andcollection and disbursement of funds.Employees respond to requests forinformation and pleadings, schedulehearings, facilitate the disposition ofcases, and collect and properlydisperse public funds geared towardthe efficient administration of justicein the interest of public safety.

Along with the relationship be-tween the Court and the Police andother law enforcement agencies,Traffic Court maintains operationallinkages with the PennsylvaniaDepartment of Transportation, thePhiladelphia Parking Authority, theProthonotary’s Department in theOffice of the President Judge of theCourt of Common Pleas, and theCommon Pleas Court to whichappeals from Traffic Court judge-ments are referred.

Enhanced access to Traffic Courtfacilities is provided by accommodat-ing the public with extended weekdaycourt hours (8:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.)

and on Saturdays from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00PM.. With the advent of the recent “Bootand Tow” legislation requiring motorists toappear at the Court within 24 hours,providing access becomes all the moreimportant.

Customer service representatives servethe public through: 1) the provision ofinformation regarding citations andrecords; 2) receipt of payments for viola-tions (MAC and credit cards permitted); 3)scheduling hearings; and 4) providingassistance with other governmental entitiesconcerning license suspension whenrequested.

Aside from myriad administrativeduties, the Administrative Judge’s Officeprovides service to those individuals whohave fulfilled their obligations with regardto their suspended driving privileges bycorresponding with PennDOT and facilitat-ing the restoration of driving privileges.

Access is afforded through scheduledhearings before capable judges who allowthe public to state their defense and thenrender fair and equitable decisions.

Traffic Court programs particularlyassociated with access to justice includethe following:

• Working Americans with DisabilitiesAct (ADA) strategies are in compliancewith the Act, including the availabilityof a TDD phone system for the hearingimpaired.

• Individuals who are visiting from out-of-state have the opportunity of animmediate hearing in Motion Court.

• An excellent scofflaw enforcementsystem that promotes traffic safety andgenerates revenue as well.

• A program in conjunction with theProthonotary’s Office whereby liens arelodged against violators who default onpayment plans, also a source of revenue.

Senior Judge Edward Cox

Judge Lillian Podgorski

Judge Francis E. Kelly


ACHIEVEMENTS

Record Years for Collections: Lead byAdministrative Judge BerniceDeAngelis, beginning in FY 1996, theCourt’s record for collection and dis-bursement of funds underwent acomprehensive evaluative and improve-ment process. Driven in part byissuance, but arising also from efficien-cies implemented during the last twoyears, money disbursed to the City andState through Traffic Court collectionsrose 31% — from $7.1 million in CY1996 to a record $9.3 million in CY1997 — an increase of $2.2 million.

New Safety Initiative: Additionally,new steps designed to contribute to theimprovement of safety of Philadelphia’sstreets have been implemented by theCourt. Responding to public interestand legislative mandates — and led bythe Court — the Mayor’s Office, theCity Police, the Philadelphia ParkingAuthority (PPA), and the PennsylvaniaDepartment of Transportation(PennDOT) have been working towardinstituting a pilot program that willremove unregistered cars and those ofunlicensed drivers from Philadelphiahighways. A new law allows for theimmobilization, impoundment, andeventual sale of cars — hence thecommon name “Boot and Tow Law.” —a future source of revenue.

Aside from a plan for heavy trucks,the law sets forth procedures for theconfiscation of vehicles owned byindividuals having more than $250 inunpaid traffic fines and unregisteredautos and cars driven by persons withoutvalid operator’s privileges whether thedriver owns the vehicle or not. Theprocess requires involved operators and/

or owners to appear at Traffic Courtwithin 24 hours. There, drivers andowners must pay their fines or agree to apayment plan to be able to get their carback. In either instance, individualsfailing to cooperate and satisfy theirdebt to the Court, or to make arrange-ments for doing so through aninstallment plan, will have their carssold at auction.

With these new enforcement tools,increased public safety and enhancedTraffic Court efficiency are expected.

Facility Upgrades and Court Mod-ernizations: During the past two yearsthe Traffic Court lobby area has beencompletely redesigned to accommodate“one stop” customer service. Cashiersand inquiry clerks became customerservice representatives capable ofresponding to public needs. For secu-rity purposes, metal detectors andbullet-proof barriers have been in-stalled. There are also plans on thedrawing board for enhanced detentionfacilities.

Technology Upgrades: MorePennDOT and Lockheed TIMS systemmainframe terminals have been installedto better serve the increasing informa-tional needs of the public, including theaddition of terminals in each courtroom,allowing on-line, real-time access tocase information benefitting citizenswho appear for a hearing. Direct dataand communication links with thePhiladelphia Police have been devel-oped to support the effectiveenforcement of new legislation. Theautomation system is also undergoingand will continue to undergo evaluationto identify problem areas and makeappropriate improvements to enhanceservice delivery, increase efficiency,and ensure timeliness in support ofCourt operations.

Judge Fortunato Perri

Judge Joseph A. Howlett

Judge Thomasina Tynes


TRAFFIC COURT

The Traffic Court systems integrationcontractor, Lockheed Martin IMS, hasdeveloped comprehensive software tosupport the Court’s recent enforcementinitiative for impounding the vehicles ofdelinquent motorists under Title 75,Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes§6309 et seq. (Boot and Tow Law).This has included real-time integrationwith the database of the PhiladelphiaParking Authority for the on-streetcapture of vehicles owned by delinquentoffenders.

Additional personal computer deviceson the FJD local area network for e-mailand office automation access have beeninstalled, with staff training for Win-dows 95 expected in the coming months.

DEPARTMENTS

Citation Management and CourtOperations: This department receivescitations, schedules hearings, assemblesdocumentation, records results on theautomated system, and maintains files.Additionally, personnel provide re-quested information from citation sourcedocuments and court proceedingsrecords when requested by the judicialstaff, court employees and partiesinvolved in the appeal process. Appealcases are prepared here and forwardedto Common Pleas Court.

Employees in sub-units interface withthe Police Liaison Unit to ensurecitation accuracy, perform quality-control checks on the finished productproduced by the data-entry vendor, andsecures the permanency of the citationthrough micro-filming with a documentnumber for filing and retrieval purposes.Employees also record each decisionrendered, schedule special hearings, andupdate payment plans.

This department is responsible formaintaining the court calendar in thecomputer system, i.e. the correct num-ber of cases in a courtroom, number ofopen courtrooms per month and court-room accommodations for specialhearings. Case research and reportreviews are included in the clericalduties of this department.

Court Officers are responsible forexpediting the recording of dispositionsof all cases efficiently while maintain-ing discipline and decorum in thecourtroom. Tipstaves manage case flowby assuring courtroom preparation andcoordinating agencies, attorneys, clerksand police liaison officers effectively.This provides an environment beneficialto the judiciary and defendants.

Mail Room employees pick up mail atthe post office each morning and maketwo daily in-house mail pick-upsthroughout the building. Mail roompersonnel are responsible for folding,presorting and running at least 1,000notices through the Inserta-Max fordaily mailing. All packages, certified,computer tapes and special notices aremailed from here. The postage meterand all other equipment are maintainedby personnel. Bar coding has beenintroduced with an estimated $30,000per year in savings expected.

Maintenance workers perform allnecessary janitorial and other duties tomaintain the building. They construct,repair or renovate any area of the courtwhen necessary to allow for a moreconducive work environment. Thisdepartment handles receipt of shippedpackages and distributes them.

Enforcement Services: EnforcementDepartment workers contact scofflawsand others with defaulted payment plansby phone, and execute and dispose ofoutstanding warrants for the Court


through personal contact with violatorseither at home or wherever they may belocated. Arrested violators are super-vised in cell rooms while their recordsare compiled in preparation for theirarraignment in Traffic Court court-rooms.

Violators arrested by enforcementofficers or others are secured in adetention unit to ensure their safety andspeedy legal processing. This depart-ment works in conjunction with otherlaw enforcement agencies to maintainsecurity and to ensure violators’ rights.

Warrant files are maintained andupdated daily by this department.

Financial Control: This departmentreceives all monies from violators whocome to the court for citation payments,to schedule a hearing, to pay finesimposed at a court hearing and toestablish payment plans. CustomerService Cashiers dispense informationregarding citations, suspensions, defaultpayments, and the Boot and Tow pro-gram. They also provide guidance tocourtrooms. Cashiers are responsible forthe balancing of all monies collected atthe Court on a daily basis.

This department is responsible for allmonies received by the Traffic Court,including verification of Cashiering andLock Box transactions, all bank depositsand bank account reconciliation. Col-lateral and citation payments aremonitored, refunds approved and dailyrevenue distribution reports are pre-pared. A monthly financial analysis isprepared to analyze the dramatic rev-enue growth reported above.

Lockbox employees of the FinancialControl Department receive and sort allincoming mail for distribution through-out the court. All citation and collateralpayments are received and recorded.Returned mail is recorded as well. Thisdepartment is responsible for purgingthe system of all incorrect mailingaddresses, saving postage for itemspreviously mailed to non-existentaddresses. All payment documents areauthenticated for future access throughmicrofilming.


TRAFFIC COURT

Statistics

Citation Managementand Court Operations

CY1996 CY1997

Cases Filed 246,539 360,774

Cases Disposed 209,265 235,704

Cases Pending 62,429 133,386

Financial Control

FY1996 FY1997

Total Disbursement $6,819,768.54 $8,272,029.00

City Disbursement 3,048,343.43 3,692,569.53

State Disbursement 3,771,425.11 4,579,459.47

Enforcement

CY1996 CY1997

Cases Pending

w/Payment Plans 5,945 6,587

Arrests 62,429 133,386

0

2

4

6

8

10

Millio

ns

Dol

lars

Total DisbursementCity Disbursement

State Disbursement

FY1996

FY1997

Financial Control

0

100

200

300

400

Thou

sand

s

No.

of

Cas

es

Cases FiledCases Disposed

Cases Pending

CY1996

CY1997

Citation Mgmt. & Court Operations

0

2

4

6

8

Thousa

nds

CY1996 CY1997

Cases Pending w/Paymt Plans

Arrests

Enforcement


IN MEMORIAM

The First Judicial District has been graced over its long and productive historywith a Bench composed of members whose abilities, enthusiasm, intellect, andcompassion have largely defined the District’s successes. Unfortunately, severaljudicial leaders departed this life during the 1996-1997 Biennium. The briefsummaries included below are intended merely to invoke the memory of these fineindividuals. Their contributions are too numerous to list, and of incalculablevalue. In a very real sense, a large share of the Court’s achievements, past,present, and future, are a part of the legacy of the people listed herein.

Judge Ethan Allen DotySenior Judge Ethan Allen Doty retired from the Common Pleas Court bench in the fall of 1996.At the time of his retirement, Judge Doty presided over mass tort litigation at the ComplexLitigation Center. He was appointed to the bench in 1958, nominated without opposition in1959, and reelected in 1969. Judge Doty was elected Administrative Judge of the Trial Divisionin 1968 and reelected in 1974. Judge Doty graduated from Temple University and TempleUniversity Law School.

Judge Charles KleinSenior Judge Charles Klein served for 56 years as a judge in Orphans’ Court. Judge Klein, whoserved as a judge for longer than anyone in Philadelphia’s history, served as President Judgeof the Orphans’ Court and as Administrative Judge of the Orphans’ Court Division of theCourt of Common Pleas for over twenty years. Judge Klein graduated from Temple UniversitySchool of Law.

Judge Berel CaesarSenior Judge Berel Caesar presided over mass tort litigation at the Complex Litigation Centeruntil the time of his death on October 9, 1997. Judge Caesar graduated from West PhiladelphiaHigh School in 1945, Swarthmore College in 1948 and the University of Pennsylvania LawSchool in 1954. Judge Caesar was appointed to the bench in 1974, elected in 1977 andreelected in 1987.

Judge Edward RosenwaldSenior Judge Edward Rosenwald presided over mass tort litigation at the Complex LitigationCenter until the time of his retirement from the bench in 1995. Judge Rosenwald graduatedfrom Southern High School, the Wharton School, and the University of Pennsylvania LawSchool. He prided himself on being able to effectuate settlement of personal injury claims thatcame to his court for disposition.

Judge Frank M. JacksonSenior Judge Frank Jackson presided over mass tort litigation at the Complex Litigation Centeruntil the time of his death on March 12, 1997. Judge Jackson was appointed to the Court ofCommon Pleas in October 1984 and elected November 1985. Judge Jackson graduated from St.Joseph’s University and the University of Pennsylvania Law School. Prior to his attainingsenior status, Judge Jackson presided in the Family Division of the Court of Common Pleas.

Judge Edward J. BlakeJudge Edward Blake was the first Court Administrator of the Court of Common Pleas servingunder former President Judge Vincent Carroll. He was appointed to the bench in December1971, elected in 1973, and retained in 1983. In 1986 Judge Blake was appointed by the SupremeCourt to serve as Administrative Judge of the Trial Division. Judge Blake served asAdministrative Judge until his election as President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas bythe Board of Judges on December 18, 1990. Judge Blake graduated from St. Joseph’s Collegeand the University of Pennsylvania Law School.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Genesis

Consistent with the advantages and the spirit of the reorganization of the First JudicialDistrict of Pennsylvania, and, pursuant to the direction of the Administrative Governing Board(AGB)1, First Judicial District Court Administrator Joseph J. DiPrimio, Esq., recognized thebenefits inherent in the publication of a report that would, for the first time in the more than 300year-old history of the Court, describe in one place the foundation, organization andaccomplishments of all the Court’s judges and staff from throughout the District. Never beforehad such a single comprehensive report been presented, combining organizational informationand performance-related descriptions concerning every Court of the First Judicial District - theoldest in the nation.

Essentially, the outlined plan included: 1) gathering creative and knowledgeable individualsfrom each of the constituent Courts and Divisions; 2) creating a cohesive theme; 3) assigningresponsibilities and forming a subcommittee and Editorial Board structure; and 4) pledging andproviding his support, reinforcing confidence in the membership’s commitment, skill and abilityto bring the project to fruition. The reasoning here was that the component Courts could bebest explained by those people working in them, and importantly, that collegiality would befostered through collaborative work on the project, culminating with publication of the report.Later, participants’ submissions were compiled and edited for consistency of style, the editorsbeing mindful of the importance of the preservation of the informational content. A list ofparticipants is provided below.

Following this vision, and beginning in late 1997, the First Judicial District CourtAdministrator, with the support of the Administrative Governing Board, began to organizerepresentatives from all the constituent components comprising the Philadelphia Court System.After considerable discussion during intense brainstorming sessions among the participants,agreement was achieved establishing a report theme relating modern-day access to justiceinitiatives and commitments as presented within the context of the rich history of the District.Potential readership was discussed, and the format and number of reports required weredetermined as a result. Subcommittees were formed to address questions concerning statistics,

gen´e ·sis (jèn´ î-sîs), noun, [Latin, from Greek genesis, from the rootof gignesthai to be born; akin to Latin gignere, toward: to cause tobe born] The origination or coming into being of anything; naturaldevelopment into being; process or mode of originating, especially bygrowth or evolution; as, the genesis of the mind or of ideas; also, atheory or account of the genesis of anything.

1 The centralized management infrastructure of the District was largely defined by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania inMarch of 1996 through an order made effective April 1, 1996 that established the Administrative Governing Board (AGB)� a group of judicial leaders with extensive responsibilities for overall management of the District. The board is aided bythe FJD Court Administrator.

Leonard A. HackingCo-Editor

James M. ClarkCo-Editor

Joseph J. DiPrimio, EsquireChairmanBiennial Report CommitteeEditor in Chief


photography, format, and timetables. Because of the historical nature of this endeavor - such areport had never been organized before — an expert in graphics presentation, Image IVAdvertising Design/Marketing Communications, was retained.

Paramount to the development of the report, a thematic thread winds through every section:Access to Justice. Relatedly, the group concentrated on the concept of accountability.Internally, accountability is often manifested by the Court’s responsibilities to adhere to andcontinue to set higher standards for performance. In the expanded sense, Judges,administrators and staff also hold themselves accountable to the public whom they serve, andserve well.

This report is the product of the hard work of the contributors with the support of thejudiciary and other Court leaders. It is especially noteworthy that during operations, followingclear direction from the Administrative Governing Board, the Court Administrator and others,the the day-to-day accomplishments of the judges and employees of the First Judicial Districtrepresent the essence of the report. While the cooperative publication of the First JudicialDistrict Special 1996-1997 Biennial Report is a laudable achievement in and of itself, it merelyreflects what the thousands of employees do every day: provide the highest caliber of justiceto the citizens of Philadelphia.

Biennial Report Committee:

John P. GallagherPhotographer

Lillian DrozdowskiPhotography Assistant

Donald A. Varley, Jr.Graphics/Technology

*Joseph J. DiPrimio, Esquire, Chairman*David C. Lawrence, Co-Chairman*James M. Clark, Co-Editor*Leonard Hacking, Co-Editor*Margaret M. Donapel, Layout & Design

Cliff Baumbach*John Buggy

Joseph CaironeBrian Coen

*Deborah Dailey*Carl L. Divens

Lillian DrozdowskiJoseph EversJohn P. GallagherKenneth E. HaleJoseph Hassett, EsquireBarbara HaurinGeorge HuttonVirginia King

Matthew F. LewandowskiDaniel F. Madonna, Esquire

*Charles Mapp, EsquireCynthia MareliaPatricia McDermott

*Joseph McGill, Esquire*Mary McGovern

Margaret T. McKeown, EsquireSandra NardiNaomi PostKathleen M. RaponeCathy Rauscher

*Edward W. Rementer*Dominic Rossi, Esquire*Lisa Schellinger

Joseph StewardDonald A. Varley, Jr.Beatrice Williams

*Editorial Board

Note: Judges’ portraits are arranged according to 1998 assignments.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Brainstorming session.

The FJD Annual Report Committee also wishes to acknowledge the following resourcesfor their contribution to the 1996-97 Biennial Report:

Birch, W., BIRCH’S VIEWS OF PHILADELPHIA, (1982)Collins, Herman LeRoy, PHILADELPHIA-A STORY OF PROGRESS, (1941)Eastman, Frank M., COURTS AND LAWYERS-PENNSYLVANIA, (1922)Konkle, Burton Alva, BENJAMIN CHEW, (1932)Konkle, Burton Alva, THE LIFE AND TIMES OF THOMAS SMITH, (1904)Martin, John Hill, MARTIN’S BENCH AND BAR OF PHILADELPHIA, (1883)Webster, Noah, WEBSTER’S NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARYThe City TavernCommonwealth of Pennsylvania, State Law LibraryThe Free Library of PhiladelphiaThe Theodore F. Jenkins Memorial Law LibraryPhiladelphia Department of RecordsOffice of City ArchivesPhiladelphia Office of the City RepresentativeNational Park ServiceJennifer LawrenceAnne LiivakRandall Tenor

Paul B. McAndrews, Crier

greetings from the - first judicial district of … · greetings from the state court administrator...

Documents