THE COURTS
Title 234--RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I. GENERAL
[234 PA. CODE CH. 20]
Proposed Amendment to Rule 22: Location of Proceedings before Issuing Authorities
[30 Pa.B. 1360]
Introduction The Criminal Procedural Rules Committee is planning to recommend that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania adopt changes to Rule 22 (Location of Proceedings Before Issuing Authority). This proposal would allow the president judge of a judicial district to establish procedures for conducting summary trials at a centralized location within the judicial district. This proposal has not been submitted for review by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
The following explanatory Report highlights the Committee's considerations in formulating this proposal. Please note the Committee's Reports should not be confused with official Committee Comments to the rules. Also note that the Supreme Court does not adopt the Committee's Comments or the contents of the explanatory Reports.
The text of the proposed rule changes precedes the Report.
We request that interested persons submit suggestions, comments, or objections concerning central courts for summary trials to the Committee through counsel, Anne T. Panfil, Chief Staff Counsel, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Criminal Procedural Rules Committee, P. O. Box 1325, Doylestown, PA 18901 no later than Wednesday, April 5, 2000.
By the Criminal Procedural Rules Committee:
J. MICHAEL EAKIN,
Chair
Annex A
TITLE 234. RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I. GENERAL
CHAPTER 20. ISSUING AUTHORITIES: VENUE, LOCATIONS, AND RECORDING OF PROCEEDINGS Rule 22. Location of Proceedings Before Issuing Authority.1
[(a)] (A) An issuing authority within the magisterial district for which he OR SHE is elected or appointed shall have jurisdiction and authority at [ANY TIME OTHER THAN DURING HIS OR HER ESTABLISHED OFFICE HOURS] ALL TIMES to receive complaints, issue warrants, hold preliminary arraignments, fix and take bail, [and] issue commitments to jail, AND HOLD HEARINGS AND summary TRIALS. [AT HIS RESIDENCE WITHIN THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, BUT ALL HEARINGS AND TRIALS BEFORE SUCH ISSUING AUTHORITY SHALL BE HELD PUBLICLY AT HIS ESTABLISHED OFFICE, OR AT ANOTHER LOCATION, WITHIN OR WITHOUT THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, DESIGNATED BY THE PRESIDENT JUDGE, UNLESS AN EMERGENCY EXISTS OR THE NUMBER OF PERSONS LAWFULLY ASSEMBLED AND ENTITLED TO BE PRESENT IS TOO GREAT TO BE ACCOMMODATED IN SUCH PLACE, IN WHICH EVENT THE HEARING OR TRIAL MAY BE ADJOURNED AS QUICKLY AS MAY BE, TO A SUITABLE PLACE, WITHIN THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT.]
(1) EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH (A)(2), ALL PRELIMINARY ARRAIGNMENTS SHALL BE HELD IN THE ISSUING AUTHORITY'S ESTABLISHED OFFICE, A NIGHT COURT, OR SOME OTHER FACILITY WITHIN THE COMMONWEALTH DESIGNATED BY THE PRESIDENT JUDGE, OR THE PRESIDENT JUDGE'S DESIGNEE.
(2) PRELIMINARY ARRAIGNMENTS MAY BE CONDUCTED USING ADVANCED COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY PURSUANT TO RULE 140. THE PRELIMINARY ARRAIGNMENT IN THESE CASES MAY BE CONDUCTED FROM ANY SITE WITHIN THE COMMONWEALTH DESIGNATED BY THE PRESIDENT JUDGE, OR THE PRESIDENT JUDGE'S DESIGNEE.2
(3) ALL HEARINGS AND summary TRIALS BEFORE THE ISSUING AUTHORITY SHALL BE HELD PUBLICLY AT THE ISSUING AUTHORITY'S ESTABLISHED OFFICE, UNLESS, FOR REASONS OF EMERGENCY, SECURITY, SIZE, OR SOME OTHER JUSTIFICATION, THE PRESIDENT JUDGE, OR THE PRESIDENT JUDGE'S DESIGNEE, DIRECTS THAT THE HEARING OR summary TRIAL BE HELD IN ANOTHER MORE SUITABLE LOCATION WITHIN THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT.
(4) THE ISSUING AUTHORITY MAY RECEIVE COMPLAINTS, ISSUE WARRANTS, FIX AND TAKE BAIL, AND ISSUE COMMITMENTS TO JAIL FROM ANY LOCATION WITHIN THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT, OR AN ADVANCED COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY SITE WITHIN THE COMMONWEALTH.
[(b)] (B) WHEN LOCAL CONDITIONS REQUIRE, [The] The [President] President [Judge] Judge shall [, WHERE LOCAL CONDITIONS REQUIRE,] establish procedures [WHEREBY, IN ALL OR CERTAIN CLASSES OF CASES,] FOR preliminary hearings or summary trials IN ALL CASES, OR IN CERTAIN CLASSES OF CASES, [MAY] TO be held at a central place or places within the [Judicial] Judicial [District] District at certain specified times. The procedures established shall provide either for the transfer of the case or the transfer of the issuing authority to the designated central place as the needs of justice and efficient administration require. [WHEN THE DEFENDANT OR HIS COUNSEL AND THE ATTORNEY FOR THE COMMONWEALTH AGREE, THE PRELIMINARY HEARING SHALL BE HELD AT THE ESTABLISHED OFFICE OF THE ISSUING AUTHORITY WHO RECEIVED THE COMPLAINT.]
Official Note: Formerly Rule 156, paragraph [(a)] (A) adopted January 16, 1970, effective immediately; [Paragraph] Paragraph [(a)] (A) amended and paragraph [(b)] (B) adopted November 22, 1971, effective immediately; renumbered September 18, 1973, effective January 1, 1974; amended ____ , 2000, effective ____ , 2000.
Comment THE 2000 AMENDMENTS TO PARAGRAPH (A) DIVIDED THE PARAGRAPH INTO SUBPARAGRAPHS TO MORE CLEARLY DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE LOCATIONS FOR THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF PROCEEDINGS AND BUSINESS THAT AN ISSUING AUTHORITY CONDUCTS.
SEE RULE 140 AND COMMENT FOR THE PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE USE OF ADVANCED COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY IN PRELIMINARY ARRAIGNMENTS.
SEE RULE 21 CONCERNING THE VENUE WHEN THE PROCEEDINGS ARE CONDUCTED BY USING ADVANCED COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY.
Paragraph [(b)] (B) of this rule is intended to facilitate compliance with the requirement that defendants be represented by counsel at the preliminary hearing. Coleman v. Alabama, 399 US 1, 90 S.Ct. 1999 (1970).
[THIS RULE] PARAGRAPH (A)(4) PERMITS ISSUING AUTHORITIES TO PERFORM THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES FROM AN ADVANCED COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY SITE. THE SITE MAY BE LOCATED OUTSIDE THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT OR JUDICIAL DISTRICT WHERE THE ISSUING AUTHORITY PRESIDES. SEE RULE 3 FOR THE DEFINITION OF ''ADVANCED COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY.''
This rule allows the [President Judge] President Judge of a [Judicial District] Judicial District the discretion to determine what classes of cases require centralized preliminary hearings or summary trials, and requires [HIM] THE PRESIDENT JUDGE, OR THE PRESIDENT JUDGE'S DESIGNEE, to establish a schedule of central places WITHIN THE COMMONWEALTH to conduct such hearings or summary trials and the hours [THEREOF] FOR THE HEARINGS or trials AT THE CENTRAL LOCATIONS.
Ideally, this rule should minimize the inconvenience to defense counsel and the attorney for the Commonwealth by eliminating the necessity of travel at various unpredictable times to many different locations throughout the [Judicial District] Judicial District for the purpose of attending preliminary hearings or summary trials. [HOWEVER, WHERE IT IS CONVENIENT TO HOLD THE PRELIMINARY HEARING IN THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHERE THE CASE AROSE, THE RULE ALLOWS THE PARTY TO SO STIPULATE.] Finally, this rule allows preliminary hearings or summary trials for jailed defendants to be held at a location close to the place of detention.
COMMITTEE EXPLANATORY REPORTS: Report explaining the proposed amendments published at 29 Pa.B. 2665 (May 22, 1999).
Report explaining the proposed amendments published at 30 Pa.B. 1362 (March 11, 2000).
Report
Proposed Amendment of Pa.R.Crim.P. 22
Centralized Courts for Summary Trials The Committee is proposing that Rule 22 (Location of Proceedings Before Issuing Authority) be amended to clarify that the president judge of a judicial district may establish procedures for summary trials to be held at a centralized location within the judicial district.
Over the past several months, the Committee has been reviewing the provisions of Rule 22. As part of this review, we have proposed changes about the locations from which an issuing authority may conduct business within a judicial district. See 29 Pa.B. 2664 (May 22, 1999). As we evaluated the comments in response to our publication of this proposal, some members pointed out that the language in paragraphs (A) and (B) may be perceived as inconsistent--if the district justice has jurisdiction to conduct hearings and trials in their regular business office, paragraph (A), why wouldn't the same be true if the president judge has established a central court pursuant to paragraph (B). During our discussions, the Committee believed the same reasons for establishing a central court for preliminary hearings apply to summary trials, including 1) minimizing the inconvenience to counsel by eliminating travel to many locations throughout the judicial district; and 2) allowing summary trials for jailed defendants to be held at a location close to the place of detention. Accordingly, the Committee agreed to propose amendments to Rule 22 to specifically permit the president judge to establish central courts for summary trials when there is a need in the judicial district. The proposed changes to Rule 22 would not mandate that central courts be established for summary trials, but are discretionary, providing each president judge with the option to establish a central court for summary trials. Accordingly, the Committee is proposing that Rule 22 be amended as follows:
* paragraph (A) would be amended by adding ''summary'' after ''hold hearings and''
* paragraph (A)(3) would be modified from the version of Rule 22 published in May 1999 by the insertion of ''summary'' before ''trials'' in the first line, and ''trial'' in the last line
* paragraph (B) would be amended by adding the language ''and summary trials'' after ''preliminary hearings''
* the Comment would be revised so that the language would conform to the language in the rule.
[Pa.B. Doc. No. 00-418. Filed for public inspection March 10, 2000, 9:00 a.m.] _______
1 For the convenience of the bench and bar, the Committee has shown all the proposed Rule 22 changes, both the changes that were published previously concerning the location from which an issuing authority may conduct business and hold hearings and trials, see 29 Pa.B. 2664 (May 22, 1999), which are indicated in SMALL CAPITAL LETTERS, and the changes in the present proposal concerning central courts for summary trials. Since the Committee has received comments on the previously published proposal, we are seeking input only concerning the addition of summary trials and central courts.
2 The changes here and elsewhere in the rule concerning advanced communication technology are part of a separate proposal. This language has not been adopted by the Court; it is provided as a convenience for the bench and bar.
No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Bulletin full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.
