Judicial Services Report 2016, 225th Anniversary Edition

LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

225th Anniversary Edition Judicial Services Report

Table of Contents

Message from President Judge and District Court Administrator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Court Organizational Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

History of the Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Past Judges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2016 Board of Judges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Court Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Criminal Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

i Adult Probation and Parole Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Treatment Courts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Civil Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

Family Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

i Domestic Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

i Juvenile Probation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

Orphans’ Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Magisterial District Courts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

Court Reporters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52

Law Library . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55

Court Related Offices

i Clerk of Courts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

i Office of the Prothonotary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59

i Register of Wills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

i Sheriff's Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60

In Memoriam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62

the District Court Administrator

We celebrate this year the 225 th Anniversary of the first session of the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas on October 31, 1791. Central to that celebration is the recognition of the professional work performed by over 485 talented and dedicated Court employees. Although the Court has grown tremendously over the last 225 years to meet the needs of the County’s over 530,000 citizens, it is no less dedicated to the fair, impartial, effective, and efficient administration of justice. It is therefore with great pride we present this Judicial Services Report highlighting the major responsibilities and accomplishments of the Judges, Magisterial District Judges, various Court departments, and Court-related offices. Additionally, we are grateful for the support of the Commissioners, other elected officials and the citizenry of the County.

Dennis E. Reinaker President Judge

Mark M. Dalton District Court Administrator

Dennis E. Reinaker

Mark M. Dalton

Dennis E. Reinaker President Judge

Jeffery D. Wright Judge

Howard F. Knisely Judge

David R. Workman Judge

Jay J. Hoberg Judge

Donald R. Totaro Judge

David L. Ashworth Judge

Leslie Gorbey Judge

James P. Cullen Judge

Leonard G. Brown III Judge

Jeffrey J. Reich Judge

Christopher A. Hackman Judge

Merrill M. Spahn, Jr. Judge

Margaret C. Miller Judge

Thomas B. Sponaugle Judge

Louis J. Farina Joseph C. Madenspacher Senior Judges

19 Magisterial District Judges

Mark M. Dalton District Court Administrator

Russell A. Glass Deputy Court Administrator Magisterial District Judges

Diane M. Fralich Director Domestic Relations

David H. Mueller Director Juvenile Probation

Lisa Miller Director Court Reporter

Eleanor L. Gerlott Librarian Law Library

Mark J. Wilson Director Adult Probation

Beverly A. Kirby ADCA-Judicial Info. Systems

Daniel D. Scarberry ADCA-Bail/Pre-Trial Services.

Jennifer Mulroney ADCA-Criminal

Chris A. Reed ADCA-HR/Fiscal/Purchasing

Annie L. Flaud ADCA-Civil

LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

History of the Court

The Second Judicial Court The Act of April 13, 1791 that implemented the judicial parts of the Constitution of 1790 provided that Pennsylvania shall be divided into five districts or circuits, the second of which shall consist of Chester, Lancaster, York, and Dauphin Counties. The Act of February 24, 1806 divided the state into ten dis- tricts, with Lancaster, York, and Dauphin counties forming the second district. The Act of February 6, 1815 put Lebanon and Dauphin coun- ties into the twelfth district, leaving only Lancaster and York counties in the second. The Act of April 11, 1835 removed York County from the sec- ond and joined it into Adams County, creating the nineteenth district. Consequently, Lancaster County alone constituted the second district from May 11, 1835 onward to the present.

When William Penn drafted his “Frames of Government” for Pennsylvania, the Eng- lish system was adopted. Judges skilled in the law administered justice in cases of serious felonies and heard appeals in regional courts, while Justices of the Peace, appointed from local citizenry, handled lesser offenses and administrative duties. Lancaster County was well-served by its early Justices of the Peace. Most of the men appointed were exception- al citizens, and many had served in the Pennsylvania Assembly as legislators. The provi- sions of the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1790 required for the first time that local courts have a presiding Judge “learned in the law”. William Augustus Atlee was commissioned as the first President Judge of the Lancas- ter County Court under the 1790 Constitution. He held court in a structure in Penn Square, with the first session extended over four days, beginning October 31, 1791. The two trials held during that term involved theft, one of a cow and one of a horse. The horse theft case had been ordered held over for re-trial by order of the pre-constitutional court, and the alleged cow thief was cleared on the condition that he pay court costs. Thus, both as to a place in which to conduct business and the beginnings of a case load, the 250 years of the constitutional judiciary we now celebrate owes a great debt to the sixty-two years of colonial and commonwealth judiciary which preceded it, and to William Penn’s foresight.

After Lancaster County was established in May of 1729, the new Lancaster County Court held its first session in August 1729 at Postlethwaite’s Tavern. In 1737, the Coun- ty’s first Courthouse was constructed in the square. Here, Indian Chiefs met with the British in 1744, during the ensuing four-year war with France. It was also in this Court- house that the Continental Congress met on September 27, 1777 and that the Pennsyl- vania General Assembly met during the British occupation of Philadelphia. In 1786, af- ter this Courthouse was destroyed by fire, another was constructed in the square and used until 1853. In 1853, the Lancaster County Court met in Fulton Hall, now known as the Fulton Opera House, while the present Courthouse was being constructed between King, Duke, and Grant Streets. Sessions began here in 1854, and in 1977, the Court- house was expanded by an addition along Duke Street. Pursuant to Pennsylvania’s 1790 Constitution, Judge Atlee received his commis- sion for life subject to removal either by impeachment or for reasonable cause by the Governor upon a two-thirds vote of both branches of the legislature. In 1838, the new Constitution allowed for ten-year judicial appointments by the Governor with Senate approval. Later, an 1850 amendment removed all sitting judges and replaced them with judges selected by popular election. In 1874, that term was set at ten years, although Justices of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court were elected for twenty-one year terms. The 1968 amendments to the Constitution allowed for judges to be selected by popular election for their initial ten-year term and thereafter stand for either election or reten- tion. Prior to the 1968 amendments, judges who were appointed to the Common Pleas bench also sat as Judges of the Court of Oyer and Terminer and General Jail Delivery and the Court of Quarter Sessions of the Peace. Oyer and Terminer Courts tried felony cases and the Quarter Sessions Courts tried misdemeanors. The difference in court names made no difference in court functioning. The 1968 Constitutional amendments created a unified judicial system from the District Justice Court through the Supreme Court. Furthermore, Orphans’ Court was declared a division of the Court of Common Pleas; the two had previously been separate. Major legislative efforts, most notable in 1976, 1978, and 1980, have served to modernize, organize, and rationalize the admin- istration of justice for Pennsylvania citizens. Lancaster County Judges and Court Officials have often set the example for other court systems with innovative programs to improve the administration of justice. In 1960, the Court created a separate Domestic Relations division. With the cooperation of local industry, the Court implemented a Work Release program at the Lancaster Coun- ty Prison to encourage restitution to the victim and to promote rehabilitation of the of- fender. In 1980, a Special Offenders Services project was inaugurated within the Proba- tion and Parole Department of the Lancaster County Court. This project has received national recognition for its work in supervising persons with mental retardation who have been convicted of crimes.

Past Judges

T. Roberts Appel : (PJ of OC) Judge 10/18/1940-1949; Died 11/13/1950

William Augustus Atlee: (PJ) Judge 1791-1793; Died 9/9/17 9 3 John Joseph Henry: (PJ) Judge 1794-1810; Died 4/15/1811

Joseph B. Wissler : (PJ) Judge 1/1942-1/1972; Died 5/8/1983

John L. Bowman : (PF of OC) Judge 4/19/1949-1/1970; Died 11/2/1977

Walter Franklin: (PJ) Judge 1/18/1811-2/7/1836; Died 2/7/1836

William G. Johnstone, Jr. : (PJ) Judge 1/1956-1/1976; Died 6/18/1990

Charles Ogle: Judge 4/1/1836; Resigned July 1836 without having taken his seat

W. Hensel Brown : (PJ) Judge 1/24/1966-1/1978; Died 8/7/1988

Oristus Collins: (PJ) Judge 8/8/1836-7/1 8 39

Anthony R. Appel : (PJ) Judge 1/1970-1/1990

Benjamin Champneys : (PJ) Judge 7/1839-10/8/1842

Paul A. Mueller, Jr. : (PJ) Judge 1/1976-1/1996

Ellis Lewis: (PJ) Judge 1/14/1843-11/14/1851

Ronald L. Buckwalter : Judge 1/1980-1/2000

Henry G. Long : (PJ) Judge 11/17/1851-12/1871

Louise G. Herr : Judge 1/1986-4/30/1992; Died 4/30/1992

Alexander L. Hayes : Judge 4/13/1854-1/1875

Wilson Bucher: Judge 1972-1982; Senior Judge 2000-2003; Died 2/4/16

John B. Livingston : (PJ) Judge 12/1881-2/13/04; Died 10/18/1906

D. Richard Eckman: (PJ) Judge 1/2/1978-8/8/1999; Died 8/16/2002

David W. Patterson : Judge 12/3/1874-2/21/1892; Died 2/21/1892

Michael A. Georgelis: (PJ) Judge 1/6/1986-12/31/2006; Senior Judge 1/1/2007-12/31/2007 Wayne G. Hummer, Jr: Judge 1/7/1980 -12/31/2007; Senior Judge 1/1/2008-12/31/2015

David McMullen : Judge 3/2/1892-1/1893

Henry Clay Brubaker : Judge 12/19/1982-3/29/1899; Died 3/29/1899

Charles I. Landis: (PJ) Judge 4/11/1899-11/1/1930

Michael J. Perezous: Judge 1/4/1982-12/31/2006; Senior Judge 1/1/2007-12/31/2014; Died 8/14/2016

Eugene G. Smith : (PJ of OC) Judge 1/1902-1/11/1928; Died 1/11/1928

Louis J. Farina: (PJ) Judge 1/6/1986-12/31/2013; Senior Judge 1/1/2014-Present

Aaron B. Hassler : Judge 2/18/1904-1/1926

John M. Groff : (PJ) Judge 10/27/1927-9/1/1932

Lawrence F. Stengel: Judge 10/29/1990-6/27/2004

William N. Appel : (PJ of OC) Judge 3/1928-1937; Died 10/10/1937

Paul K. Allison: Judge 1/6/1992-12/31/2007; Died 1/19/2016

Benjamin Champneys Atlee : (PJ) Judge 1/1932-5/14/90; Died 5/14/1940

Henry S. Kenderdine, Jr.: Judge 1/6/1992 – 4/10/2010; Died 4/10/2010

Oliver S. Schaeffer : (PJ) Judge12/12/1932-2/20/1955; Died 2/20/1955

Joseph C. Madenspacher: (PJ) Judge 1/3/2000-12/31/2015; Senior Judge 1/1/2016-Present

H. Clay Burkholder : (PJ of OC) Judge 2/2/1937-1/1956; Died 11/5/1983

Christian E. Charles : (PJ of OC) Judge 1/1938-11/29/1940; Died 11/29/1940

2016 Board of Judges

Front Row

Back Row

Serving since 2013. J.D. from Dickinson School of Law.

Serving since 2003. J.D. from Widener University School of Law.

MERRILL M. SPAHN, JR.

DAVID R. WORKMAN

Serving since 2008. J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center.

JEFFREY J. REICH

Serving since 1999. J.D. from Delaware Law School of Widener University.

DAVID L. ASHWORTH

Serving since 2008. J.D. from Dickinson School of Law.

MARGARET C. MILLER

Serving since 1992. J.D. from Villanova University School of Law.

JAMES P. CULLEN

Serving since 2008. J.D. from Loyola School of Law.

HOWARD F. KNISELY

DENNIS E. REINAKER, PRESIDENT JUDGE

Serving since 2006. J.D. from Cumberland School of Law of Samford University. Serving since 1997. J.D. from Widener University School of Law.

JEFFERY D. WRIGHT

Serving since 2008. J.D. from University of Pittsburgh School of Law. Serving since 2008. J.D. from University of Richmond School of Law. Serving since 2011. J.D. from Campbell University School of Law.

LESLIE GORBEY

Serving since 2001. J.D. from University of Toledo School of Law.

CHRISTOPHER A. HACKMAN

JAY J. HOBERG

Serving since 2008. J.D. from American University, Washington College of Law.

DONALD R. TOTARO

LEONARD G. BROWN, III

THOMAS B. SPONAUGLE

Serving since 2016. J.D. from Florida State University College of Law.

The Court Administration Office consists of five units. Each unit is supervised by an Assistant District Court Administrator with overall management conducted by the District Court Administrator. In alphabetical order, the units are: x Bail Administration & Pre-Trial Services x Criminal x Family/Civil x HR, Fiscal, & Purchasing x IT x Jury

District Court Administrator Mark Dalton

Bail Administration & Pre-Trial Services The Bail Administration unit has responsibility for 5 major functions within the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas: Pre-trial Release/DUI Repeat Offender Program, pro se Protection from Abuse Petitions, screening for free legal counsel applicants, facilitation of Act 172 with reference of the use of interpreters for all court proceedings, and full compliance of the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas Language Access Plan. Pursuant to the Lancaster County Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Bail Administrator of Lancaster County is designated as a Bail Agency. The duties of a Bail Agency include: investigating and making recommendations to the Court and Magiste- rial District Judges as to the bail risk and modifications of pre-trial criminal defendants, supervising pre-trial defendants re- leased on conditional pre-trial release, and enforcing non-monetary conditions of bail. In addition, the Bail Administration unit supervises defendants in the DUI Repeat Offender Program (DROP) as well pre-trial release defendants released on Electronic Monitoring. The purpose and goal of the pre-trial release program is to ensure public safety and the defendant’s appearance for all court proceedings. The Bail Administration unit is essential in reducing the population of the Lancaster County Prison with the use of daily investigations of all new prison commitments, interviews of potential candidates for pre-trial release, and recommendations of the supervision of the pre-trial release program. In 2015, the Bail Administration unit supervised 772 criminal pre-trial defendants in General Supervision, DUI Repeat Offender Program, and Electronic Monitoring status, saving a total of 96,558 days of jail time for the Lancaster County Prison. With the current cost of approximately $73.00 per day to house an inmate in the Lancaster County Prison, the Bail Administration unit saved county taxpayers a projected $7 million dollars in 2015. As an alternative to costly incarceration, Bail Administration was able to successfully supervise this pre-trial population, which could have otherwise been incarcerated.

The Bail Administration unit is one of two agencies in Lancaster County which provides access to the Court for victims of domestic violence to file pro se petitions. The Pennsylvania Protection from Abuse (PFA) Act requires the Court of Common Pleas to provide access to forms and clerical assistance for victims of domestic violence not represented by counsel. In ad- dition to the Pennsylvania Protection from Abuse Act, in March 2014 the Pennsylvania Legislature established the Protection of Victims of Sexual Violence or Intimidation Act. As part of this legislation, the Bail Administration unit provides access and assistance to the Court for victims of sexual violence and intimidation to file pro se petitions seeking protection. In 2015, the Bail Administration unit provided assistance and access to 745 victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and intimida- tion. The Bail Administration unit processes all requests for court-appointed counsel and free legal counsel in all criminal, Children and Youth proceedings, and support contempt hearings. Applicants for free legal counsel for these matters pro- vide financial information to the Bail Administration unit and are screened for financial eligibility as established by court financial guidelines and criteria. In 2015, the Bail Administration unit processed 9,151 applications for free legal counsel for various related court proceedings. In addition, the Bail Administration unit facilitates court policy and procedures as related to Act 172 of 2006, which re- quires the Lancaster Court of Common Pleas to provide state-certified or otherwise qualified interpreters for all court pro- ceedings, including the Magisterial District Courts. It is the responsibility of the Bail Administration unit to preserve the rights of defendants, victims, plaintiffs, parents of juveniles, and witnesses involved in court proceedings who are not Eng- lish-proficient. In 2015, the Bail Administration unit provided services for 1,715 interpreter requests for 26 different lan- guages in all 19 District Courts and the Lancaster County Courthouse. Finally, in 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts launched an ini- tiative to assist, support, and enforce every Judicial District in Pennsylvania in implementing a Language Access Plan. Dur- ing the initial discussions as related to Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas, it was decided that the Assistant Court Administrator-Bail would be designated as the Language Access Coordinator for all of the Lancaster County Court of Com- mon Pleas. Since March of 2015, the Bail Administration unit has ensured that any individual that is seeking the services of a Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas agency is serviced regardless of their level of English proficiency. Through the use of mandatory employee trainings, “I Speak” posters, telephonic interpreters, and translation of vital court documents, every individual seeking the services of the Court in Lancaster County is given equal access to the administration of justice. Through the efforts of the Bail Administration unit, all 53 languages reflected in Lancaster County can receive services at all court agency service centers. Criminal The Criminal Scheduling unit encompasses many different duties including, but not limited to, preparing weekly con- ference lists, organizing and notifying parties of judicial assignments, preparing the court schedule, scheduling requested criminal hearings, collecting statistics, and providing the public with information on scheduled events. This unit is com- prised of two Criminal Scheduling Clerks and the Assistant District Court Administrator-Criminal. The Bailiff unit is entrusted to maintaining peace in the courtrooms. The Bailiff is responsible for checking in those that are present for court. The bailiffs also staff the jury lounge and make sure jurors safely travel from check-in to the courtroom until dismissal. The Bailiff Unit is comprised of one Bailiff Supervisor, thirty-four bailiffs, and the Assistant District Court Ad- ministrator-Criminal.

Family/Civil The Family/Civil Scheduling unit is responsible for the scheduling and processing of custody, divorce, protection, and civil cases as well as various support, Orphans’ Court, Juvenile Dependency, and Juvenile Delinquency matters. Additional duties include custody conference file preparation, assisting self-represented litigants during protection hearings, manag- ing the Arbitration program, compiling civil case trial lists, notifying parties of scheduled events, and responding to inquir- ies from the public and attorneys. This unit is comprised of two Custody Clerical Specialists, the Civil Case Coordinator, and the Assistant District Court Administrator-Family/Civil. HR, Fiscal, & Purchasing The HR, Fiscal, & Purchasing unit of Court Administration is responsible for administrative work divided into human re- sources, fiscal, and purchasing. The staff consists of the Assistant Court Administrator, Account Clerk, and Receptionist and are responsible for the following: Maintaining a liaison between the Court of Common Pleas and the County’s HR and the Controller’s department manag- ing the changes in all court positions and personnel classifications. Directly responsible for Court Administration/Bail Ad- ministration, Jury Services, Judicial Operations, and 19 Magisterial District Courts that include payroll entry, payment of court-appointed attorneys, contractors, and re-occurring utility bills.

The oversight of the annual court budget and maintaining a liaison between the Court of Common Pleas and both the County’s Purchasing and Budget departments, ensuring compliance with all established purchasing policies and proce- dures.

A vital component of the HR, Fiscal, & Purchasing unit of the Court Administration Office is the receptionist. When visit- ing or contacting the Court of Common Pleas, the receptionist is the “go to” person who serves as an expert by providing direction.

Information Technology The Court Technology unit of the District Court Administration Office oversees court and courtroom technology re- source utilization, facilitates a strategic vision for improvements to court technology, and maintains a Court Continuity of Operations Plan. Other responsibilities include maintaining security of court IT systems and data, providing project man- agement for court technology projects, and administration of the Court website. The Court Technology unit also works in conjunction with the County Information Technology Department to provide support to technology users, as well as to main- tain technology equipment and peripherals located within the Court. This unit is comprised of the Court Technologist and the Assistant District Court Administrator–Judicial Information Systems.

Jury Jurors perform a vital role in the American system of justice. The protection of our rights and liberties is largely achieved through the teamwork of judge and jury. They work together in a common effort, putting into practice the princi- ples of our great heritage of freedom. The judge determines the law to be applied in the case, while the jury decides the facts. Thus, in a very important way, jurors become a part of the court itself. Each year the process of selecting jurors begins when the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts makes available a list that is comprised of Lancaster County residents from the Pennsylvania Departments of Human Services, Transporta- tion, Revenue, and State. From there, the jury software program randomly chooses names of people to summon for jury ser- vice. Any inconvenience and financial sacrifice that might be made to render public service as a juror are greatly appreciat- ed by the judges, the lawyers, and your fellow citizens. It is a strong act of citizenship akin to paying taxes, serving in the military, and voting. The Jury unit manages the daily operation of summoning, managing excusals, and preparing juror lists for each judge. Over 17,000 jurors were summoned in 2015. This unit is comprised of the Jury Coordinator and the Assistant District Court Administrator-Criminal.

Mark M. Dalton District Court Administrator

Russell A. Glass Deputy Court Administrator

Administrative Secretary

Training Specialist

Training Specialist Sr.

Annie Flaud ADCA - Civil

Jennifer Mulroney ADCA - Criminal

Daniel Scarberry ADCA - Bail & P/T Services

Beverly Kirby ADCA - JIS

Chris A. Reed ADCA- HR, Fiscal & Purchasing

Clerical Spec III 2 Positions

Clerical Spec III 2 Positions

Clerical Spec III 3 Positions

Civil Case Coordinator

CJAB Coordinator

Senior P/T Intake

Clerical Spec III

Jury Coordinator

Clerical Spec III

Senior P/T Spec Svc

Account Clerk

Bailiff Supervisor

P/T Spec Svc

Senior Bailiff 4 (PT)

Bailiff 27 (PT)

Court Administration

LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CASELOAD AND STATISTICAL COMPARISON 2005 - 2015

2005

%

2006

%

2007

%

2008

%

2009

%

2010

%

2011

%

2012

%

2013

%

2014

%

2015

MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGES Cases Filed

106,307

2.38% 108,838

-2.94% 105,641

12.23% 118,566

-10.46% 106,159

-1.24% 104,838

0.70% 105,574

-4.06% 101,290

-4.00%

97,242

-8.70% 88,782

-1.01% 87,889

Cases Disposed

108,903

-4.85% 103,624

-2.51% 101,019

21.95% 123,189

-8.89% 112,239

-10.18% 100,818

7.49% 108,370

-3.05% 105,066

-5.15%

99,650

-10.35% 89,332

-1.73% 87,785

NOTE: 2015 BREAKDOWN CASES FILED Traffic

60,800

Summary Non-traffic

11,466

Civil & Landlord Tenant

7,301

Misdemeanor/Felony (incl. Private Complaints)

8,322

TOTAL

87,889

CRIMINAL Misdemeanors/Felonies Received

4,837

-2.21% 4,730

0.51% 4,754

2.73% 4,884

1.39% 4,952

-3.55% 4,776

3.64%

4,950

0.59%

4,979

0.64%

5,011

1.08%

5,065

0.20%

5,075

Misdemeanors/Felonies Disposed

4,204

14.82% 4,827

4.68% 5,053

-1.35% 4,985

2.97% 5,133

6.82% 5,483

-6.53%

5,125

11.26%

5,702

0.60%

5,736

-6.99%

5,335

-6.22%

5,003

PUBLIC DEFENDER & FREE LEGAL COUNSEL Applications Filed

7,569

7.19% 8,113

0.10% 8,121

5.16% 8,540

0.93% 8,619

-7.87% 7,941

1.44%

8,055

34.19%

10,809

-8.84%

9,854

-0.04%

9,850

-7.10%

9,151

JUVENILE Referrals

1,783

2.19% 1,822

1.70% 1,853

-8.69% 1,692

-18.14% 1,385

-12.49% 1,212

2.23%

1,239

-5.57%

1,170

2.48%

1,199

-21.85%

937

1.17%

948

Petitioned to Court

552

12.86%

623

-0.80%

618

5.34%

651

-23.81%

496

-3.23%

480

2.50%

492

-0.61%

489

-11.04%

435

-22.30%

338

1.48%

343

CIVIL Arbitration New Cases

167

15.57%

193

-19.17%

156

32.69%

207

-19.32%

167

82.04%

304

-16.12%

255

-25.10%

191

0.00%

191

-36.65%

121

-7.44%

112

Cases Disposed

60

25.00%

75

25.33%

94

-3.19%

91

53.85%

140

-31.43%

96

170.83%

260

-16.92%

216

-11.57%

191

-29.32%

135

-14.07%

116

All Actions Commenced New Cases

1,737

36.85% 2,377

12.37% 2,671

41.82% 3,788

4.75% 3,968

6.43% 4,223

-6.30%

3,957

2.48%

4,055

-18.30%

3,313

-12.22%

2,908

13.51%

3,301

Cases Listed for Trial / Starting 2010 Cases Available for Dispo

204

-9.80%

184

16.85%

215

-16.28%

180

10.56%

199

1508.04% 3,200

89.03%

6,049

40.50%

8,499

19.37%

10,145

12.75% 11,438

8.43% 12,402

Cases disposed, settled, jury, non-jury,

106

-12.26%

93

18.28%

110

-37.27%

69

24.64%

86

1068.60% 1,005

61.69%

1,625

9.11%

1,773

-8.52%

1,622

54.99%

2,514

26.61%

3,183

and (beginning 2010) default

FAMILY Domestic Relations New TANF/Non TANF Cases Recd

4,297

3.61% 4,452

-5.05% 4,227

-2.51% 4,121

-2.50% 4,018

-0.07% 4,015

-2.91%

3,898

0.18%

3,905

-5.38%

3,695

-2.33%

3,609

-7.23%

3,348

Modifications (TANF/Non-TANF)

5,131

-5.65% 4,841

-0.33% 4,825

5.53% 5,092

5.28% 5,361

-8.34% 4,914

0.24%

4,926

-0.28%

4,912

-5.76%

4,629

-6.61%

4,323

-6.87%

4,026

Collections: (in millions of dollars)

62,295

2.56% 63,890

0.91% 64,474

0.40% 64,731

-4.06% 62,102

-5.17% 58,894

0.42%

59,141

-0.75%

58,699

0.48%

58,981

-0.71% 58,562

0.74% 58,996

Divorce Cases Filed

1,435

-0.70% 1,425

-0.77% 1,414

-3.89% 1,359

1.18% 1,375

9.24% 1,502

-6.06%

1,411

3.26%

1,457

-1.44%

1,436

-5.57%

1,356

4.35%

1,415

Granted

1,262

5.15% 1,327

-3.62% 1,279

-2.11% 1,252

-7.27% 1,161

11.80% 1,298

15.33%

1,497

-9.69%

1,352

-8.36%

1,239

3.47%

1,282

47.89%

1,896

Custody Conferences Conferences Held Protection from Abuse Pro Se Petitions

1,071

9.52% 1,173

-1.79% 1,152

0.87% 1,162

-2.58% 1,132

0.18% 1,134

-9.70%

1,024

2.73%

1,052

6.37%

1,119

5.18%

1,177

-10.03%

1,059

600

42.00%

852

27.93% 1,090

-5.87% 1,026

3.12% 1,058

2.84% 1,088

-11.21%

966

2.80%

993

-18.63%

808

0.00%

808

-7.80%

745

ORPHANS' Adoptions Received

206

28.64%

265

-8.30%

243

4.53%

254

-3.94%

244

5.74%

258

-6.20%

242

2.89%

249

-6.83%

232

5.60%

245

-6.12%

230

Disposed

195

25.13%

244

-2.46%

238

5.46%

251

1.99%

256

-3.52%

247

-1.21%

244

-1.23%

241

-7.88%

222

6.31%

236

2.97%

243

Audits Received

62

17.74%

73

-16.44%

61

-9.84%

55

-3.64%

53

-7.55%

49

-8.16%

45

13.33%

51

-19.61%

41

2.44%

42

11.90%

47

Disposed

57

5.26%

60

3.33%

62

-33.87%

41

60.98%

66

-30.30%

46

10.87%

51

-9.80%

46

60.87%

74

-35.14%

48

18.75%

57

3-14-2016

Criminal Court Judges

JUDGE REINAKER, PRESIDENT JUDGE CRIMINAL COURT

JUDGE CULLEN CRIMINAL COURT CIVIL COURT

JUDGE ASHWORTH CRIMINAL COURT CIVIL COURT TREATMENT COURT

JUDGE TOTARO CRIMINAL COURT

JUDGE WRIGHT CRIMINAL COURT CIVIL COURT TREATMENT COURT

JUDGE KNISELY CRIMINAL COURT

JUDGE MILLER CRIMINAL COURT CIVIL COURT TREATMENT COURT

JUDGE SPAHN CRIMINAL COURT FAMILY COURT PROTECTION HEARINGS

Criminal cases are initiated at the Magisterial District Court level of the Lancaster County Court system. There are nine- teen Magisterial District Court Judges in Lancaster County. During 2015, the Court of Common Pleas held forty-two weeks of criminal court with the eight Criminal Court of Common Pleas Judges. Each of these weeks had two to four judges presid- ing. When a defendant is arrested by the police for alleged criminal offenses, he/she is brought before the Magisterial Dis- trict Judge who has jurisdiction over the geographical area in which the crime was allegedly committed. The Magisterial District Judge holds a preliminary arraignment during which the defendant is informed of his/her constitutional rights and the charges; the defendant receives a copy of the complaint filed and the amount of bail is determined. At this time, a date is set for the preliminary hearing. The purpose of a preliminary hearing is to determine the existence of a prima facie case against the defendant. If a pri- ma facie case has been established, or if the defendant waives his right to a preliminary hearing, the case is bound over to the Court of Common Pleas where an arraignment is held. Additionally, Magisterial District Judges determine if a case is to be dismissed and may accept a guilty plea if the case is classified as a misdemeanor of the third degree. Once the case has made it to the Common Pleas level, the defendant is scheduled for a formal arraignment. At this time, the defendant enters a plea of guilty or not guilty. If the defendant chooses to plead guilty, a guilty plea date is scheduled. If a defendant pleads not guilty, the case is moved to a pre-trial hearing where specific issues can be addressed prior to scheduling the case for trial. At a trial, a defendant may have his/her case decided by jurors or a judge. The trial process determines if a defendant is guilty or not guilty of the charges brought against him/her. If the defendant is found not guilty, the case is dismissed. If the defendant is found guilty, a sentencing is scheduled by the Court.

The mission of Adult Probation and Parole Services is to enforce the mandate of the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County by ensuring the legal accountability of those individuals under its supervision. This objective is accomplished through individ- ualized direction, client-centered goal coordination, the effective use of community- based resources, and the swift and consistent administration of prescribed sanctions.

Director Mark Wilson

Essential Values x We believe that protection of the community is paramount. x We believe that each person is responsible for his or her own behavior and must be held accountable as a member of the community. x We believe that people in our charge can change for the better and that we can be instrumental in providing op- portunities and resources to direct that change. We be- lieve that everyone is entitled to be treated with dignity and respect.

Operational Goals x

To provide the greatest likelihood of success for the individuals under our supervision, consistent with the safety of the community, through the use of restorative alternatives and corrective sanctions. To exercise the authority with which we have been entrusted with equality and discretion. x To perpetually evaluate and adjust program services to best reflect our values and achieve our mission.

Office of Supervision Services One of two offices in Adult Probation & Parole Services, the Office of Supervision Services, provides supervision of adult offenders placed on probation and/or parole supervision by order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County. The office is comprised of two divisions: the General Supervision Division and the Special Supervision Division, each headed by a Division Director. Each division is responsible for the duties and responsibilities of the various type of services during the course of supervision.

General Supervision unit Assessment unit Central Intake unit Pre-Parole unit Medium/Maximum caseloads

Special Supervision unit Domestic Violence unit Drug Court Mental Health Court MH/ID units Sex Offender unit Veterans’ Court Re-Entry unit Electronic Monitoring/Transfer unit/ Low Risk caseloads

Office of Administrative Services One of two offices in Adult Probation & Parole Services (APPS), the Office of Administrative Services, is responsible for the administrative functions of APPS. The Collections Enforcement unit, responsible for collecting court-ordered fines, costs, and restitution, is also located in the Office of Administrative Services. Our Business Manager, Administrative Analyst, and all of Operations Support are also part of Administrative Services. This office works directly with the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas District Court Administration office, the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole , and various other probation/parole and criminal justice agencies within the Commonwealth. Providing effective community corrections is a “man-power intensive” business. APPS’ budget reflects this notion in that more than ninety percent (90%) of our budget is payroll services, while less than ten percent (10%) is opera- tions/administration.

Proposed 2016 agency expenses total $10,123,500.

In 2016, the Court/APPS will again make substantial contributions to organizational expenses by offsetting the entire expenses of five APPS cost centers (B1127, B1131, B1147, B1148, B1149) with matching revenue which is generated by su- pervision/administrative fees. In other words, these five cost centers operate at no cost to the County general fund. In ad- dition to revenue generated by supervision/administrative fees, APPS generates revenue through other sources such as electronic monitoring fees, community service insurance fees, etc. This fee-based revenue goes directly to the County general fund.

Additionally, it is anticipated that the Court/APPS will contribute $1,000,000 as a “County contributions” amount. This revenue is generated via the supervision fee and administrative fee revenue accounts of B1126.

Treatment Courts

Adult Drug Court The Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas has instituted a voluntary Adult Drug Court based on proven national re- search and program models. This Treatment Court targets primarily offenders who are ‘high risk/high needs’ through its evaluation process. This provides the participant an opportunity to pursue treatment for their addiction(s), while produc- tively addressing associated legal problems.

The Lancaster County Adult Drug Court has two possible tracks: 1. predisposition, or 2. sentence/probation violation.

For participants whose cases are predisposition, sentencing will be deferred pending completion of the Drug Court program. Upon successful completion of the Drug Court program, including payments of fines, costs, and restitution, the participant’s charges may be reduced, dismissed, or the District Attorney’s Office will seek to expunge the pertinent charg- es as previously agreed, subject to court approval.

For participants who are post-sentence/probation violation, successful completion of Drug Court may result in the re- duction or termination of any remaining supervision; however, these records cannot be expunged.

Once accepted, program participants can expect frequent contact with the Adult Drug Court Judge, probation officer, treatment providers, and the Drug Court Team. The Drug Court Program involves a minimum time commitment of twelve months, followed by a period of Aftercare. The length of the Aftercare component is based on the criminal charges for which the participant is being supervised; one year for misdemeanors and three years for felonies. Once the participant graduates from the Drug Court Program itself, including payment in full of all associated fines and costs, the criminal charg- es filed against the participant will be dismissed. After the participant successfully completes the Aftercare component, the District Attorney’s Office will agree to seek to expunge the pertinent charges as previously agreed, subject to court approv- al. For probation/parole violations, any remaining term of supervision the participant has may be terminated; however, pro- bation/parole violations cannot be expunged. If the participant is accepted into the Adult Drug Court Program, the participant will be expected to participate in and complete numerous pro-social, treatment-oriented activities. Typically, these include AA/NA meetings or approved alterna- tives, such as Al-Anon, Nar-Anon, Step to Freedom, group and individual therapy, weekly court appearances, community service, probation appointments, and random drug testing. As each participant requires a different level of intervention based on need and progress, the participants’ specific needs may require the participant to be involved in other relat- ed activities. As a participant, they can expect to receive a sanction if they violate the Adult Drug Court Program rules or fail to achieve certain Phase requirements. Typical violations that may be sanctioned include: missed appointments, failed or adulterated drug tests, new arrests/charges, and lack of participation in treatment. Sanctions will be imposed relative to the violation, and progressive in nature. Sanctions may include: essays, loss of incentives, demotion in phase, fines, curfew re- strictions, incarceration, and termination from the Adult Drug Court Program. The Adult Drug Court Team reserves the right to impose these and/or other sanctions appropriate to each particular participant and violation.

In turn, if the participant maintains purposeful and positive participation in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas Adult Drug Court, the participant may receive appropriate incentives as well. These incentives will be determined by the Adult Drug Court Team and specific rewards will depend on available resources. Historically, this has included donated gift cards from area businesses as well as Drug Court-purchased gift cards made possible through donations. Adult Mental Health Court Lancaster County Adult Mental Health Court is a specialty court program for criminal offenders diagnosed with a seri- ous mental illness. Offenders can be referred to the program by police officers, Magisterial District Judges, attorneys, pro- bation officers, case managers, prison staff, judges, family members, and other agencies or individuals who come into contact with an offender who might qualify for the program. Referral applications are reviewed by the Mental Health Court Coordinator to determine if the offender meets the pro- gram’s initial eligibility criteria. If the offender does meet initial eligibility criteria, the application is forwarded to the Lan- caster County MH/MR office, who will determine if the offender is eligible and appropriate for case management services under their guidelines. Upon approval from MH/MR, the application is forwarded to the District Attorney’s Office, who will determine if the offender and the underlying charges are appropriate for the program based on such factors as the offend- er’s criminal history, the circumstances of the crime involved, and input from the crime victim and prosecuting officer. The Mental Health Court Treatment Team evaluates the suitability of each referral. An offender is either accepted into Mental Health Court, referred to Special Offenders Services, or referred back to the standard criminal justice system.

Participation in Mental Health Court is voluntary. Informed consent will be obtained for evaluation and consideration by the Court Team. The Lancaster County Mental Health Court is a program which has two possible tracks:

1. pretrial diversion, or 2. post-sentence.

For participants whose cases are diversion, sentencing will be deferred pending completion of the Mental Health Court program. Upon successful completion of the Mental Health Court program, including payments of fines, costs, and restitution, the participant’s charges may be reduced, dismissed, or the District Attorney’s Office will seek to expunge the pertinent charges as previously agreed, subject to court approval. For participants who are post-sentence, successful completion of Mental Health Court may result in the reduction or termination of any remaining supervision; however, these records cannot be expunged. An offender accepted into Mental Health Court is provided with a mental health case manager through the Lancaster County Office of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services and a specialized mental health probation officer through Lancaster County Adult Probation and Parole Services. Working together, this team of individuals assists the offender un- der Mental Health Court supervision by assessing service needs and availability and monitoring offender compliance with services and participation in treatment/supervision plans.

Mental Health Court participants are expected to honor an approximate 12 to 18 month commitment to the program, which consists of four phases. Phase I is intensive and requires frequent contact with the participant’s probation officer and case manager, as well as weekly court appearances. Offenders who successfully complete the requirements of a giv- en phase (a period of approximately 3 to 6 months) are promoted to the next phase. With each successive phase, and as long as they continue to meet program and treatment requirements, offenders are monitored less frequently and less in- tensely. A participant can expect to receive a sanction if they violate the Mental Health Court program rules or fail to achieve certain phase requirements. Typical violations that may be sanctioned include: missed appointments, failed or adulterat- ed drug tests, new arrests/charges, dishonesty, and lack of participation in treatment. Sanctions will be imposed relative to the violation, and will be progressive in nature. Sanctions may include but are not limited to: essays, loss of privileges, phase demotion, community service, additional fines, curfew restrictions, incarceration, and termination from the Mental Health Court program. The Mental Health Court team reserves the right to impose these and/or other sanctions appropri- ate to each particular participant and violation.

In turn, if the participant maintains purposeful and positive participation in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas Mental Health Court, the participant may receive appropriate incentives and recognition as well. The method of recognition will be determined by the Mental Health Court team and specific rewards will depend on available resources.

Veterans’ Court Lancaster County’s Veterans’ Court is a treatment court based on proven national research and program models of Drug Courts, as well as successfully implemented Veterans’ Courts in jurisdictions nationwide. This provides the partici- pant an opportunity to pursue appropriate treatment, while productively addressing associated legal problems. The Lancaster County Veterans’ Court is open to any current or former member of any branch of the military, includ- ing the Reserves and National Guard. Referrals will be accepted after criminal charges have been filed and the case has been forwarded to the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas for further disposition. Any felony or misdemeanor charge will be considered, with the exception of homicide or registerable sex offenses. Referrals will also be accepted for criminal defendants who are before the Court of Common Pleas for alleged violations of existing probation/parole sen- tences, or as a condition of an Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD).

Participation in Veterans’ Court is voluntary. Informed consent will be obtained for evaluation and consideration by the Court team and again at the point of acceptance into Veterans’ Court.

For participants whose cases are on the non-diversionary track, successful completion of Veterans’ Court program, including payments of fines, costs, and restitution, may result in the reduction or termination of any remaining supervi- sion; however, these records cannot be expunged.

Once accepted, program participants can initially expect weekly contact with the Veterans’ Court judge and frequent contact from their probation officer, treatment providers, Veterans’ Justice Outreach worker, and the Veterans’ Court team. Participants will proceed through four phases of engagement.