Lancaster Bar Association Federal Redistricting Committee Report & Recommendation, January 2017

Transcription

1 Lancaster Bar Association Federal Redistricting Committee Report & Recommendation, January 2017 The suggestion has been made to seek the transfer of Lancaster County, through federal legislation, from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the Middle District. It is believed that the Lancaster Bar Association s position on whether this transfer should be made would be considered very important, and to this end, the LBA s Board has established a committee to look into such a move and make a recommendation to the Board. The committee members are Judges Ronald Buckwalter and Lawrence Stengel of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Leonard Brown of the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas, Lancaster District Attorney Craig Stedman, Lancaster attorneys James Thomas and Jason Asbell, and Chairman Joseph Roda. The committee has held a series of meetings on this among themselves, and another (on November 10, 2016) for members of the bar who were interested in the issue. The considerations that the committee has identified and believes relevant are the following: Convenience Driving distances and times: The Chief Judge for the Middle District has advised that if Lancaster County that if Lancaster County is moved to the Middle District, all cases from Lancaster County will go to the Middle District s Harrisburg Division, and not to any of the Middle District s northern divisions. Distance and driving time have thus been calculated in this report to the federal court in Harrisburg. The driving distance (according to Google Maps) from the Lancaster train station to the federal courthouse at 6 th and Market Streets in Philadelphia, via the turnpike and Schuylkill Expressway, is 78.1 miles. Alternatively, the distance via Routes 30, 41, 1, 322, and 95 is 79.2 miles. The driving distance from the Lancaster train station to the federal courthouse at 228 Walnut Street in Harrisburg is 37.1 miles. The federal courthouse in Philadelphia is slightly more than 40 miles farther or roughly twice as far from a common starting point in Lancaster than the federal courthouse in Harrisburg. The driving time (Google Maps, assuming moderate traffic) from the Lancaster train station to the federal courthouse at 6 th and Market Streets in Philadelphia: via the turnpike and Schuylkill Expressway, is 1 hour 20 minutes*. via Route 30, etc., is 1 hour 50 minutes. 1

2 The driving time (Google Maps) from the Lancaster train station to the federal courthouse at 228 Walnut Street in Harrisburg is 41 minutes, one-third (or less) the time to Philadelphia. *The committee believes, based on personal experience of committee members, that the Google Maps time estimate for the Turnpike and Schuylkill Expressway is optimistic, and that in addition to the considerations of distance and time, the difficulty and stress that driving the Schuylkill Expressway can present, at least for some people, should also be taken into account. By train: The average time for the train ride from the Lancaster station to 30 th Street Station in Philadelphia (according to Amtrak) is between 1 hour, 3 minutes and 1 hour, 20 minutes, depending on the number of stops. The time then to get from 30 th Street to the federal courthouse can vary from 10 to 15 minutes by cab, or 10 minutes by SEPTA train to the station at 5th Street, and 5 minutes to walk from there to the courthouse. (According to SEPTA, it is a 4 minute walk from the 30 th St. Amtrak station to the 30 th St. SEPTA station, and 6 minutes from there to the 5 th St. SEPTA station.) The average time for the train ride from the Lancaster station to the station in Harrisburg is between 34 minutes and 43 minutes, depending on the number of stops. The federal courthouse in Harrisburg is then about a 6 minute walk from the station. The average time for travel by train to the federal court in Harrisburg is thus about onehalf (or less) the average time for travel by train to the federal court in Philadelphia. The difference in time and ease of commute between the Eastern District and the Middle affects the convenience of all Lancaster County citizens who have to appear in Eastern District cases. That includes parties, witnesses, and jurors, as well as grand jurors who are called once a week for eighteen months. Of lesser importance than distance and time, but still worth noting, is that train tickets to Philadelphia, and the cost of parking in Philadelphia if one drives, are more expensive than train tickets to Harrisburg or parking there. Law Enforcement The Lancaster County District Attorney can prosecute certain cases in federal court under the direction of the US Attorney s Office. The US Attorney cross designates prosecutors from the Lancaster District Attorney s Office and then allows them to present certain serious cases in federal court. These crimes include Hobbes Act Robberies (actual gun robberies stores), major drug dealers, drug dealers who are armed, convicted felons in possession of a firearm, and illegal firearm dealers. The penalties for these serious offenders are more severe in federal court than in state court, and the state appellate courts have essentially eliminated state mandatory sentences for armed and/or violent offenders. 2

3 In addition, because defendants face more severe sentences in federal court they are much more likely to provide information concerning crimes and other criminals to law enforcement than if they were simply prosecuted in state court. This in turn leads to law enforcement solving murders and other serious crimes which in turn provides for increased public safety. There is thus a definite public safety benefit to prosecuting certain serious cases in federal court. But because of the distance to the Eastern District, the Lancaster County District Attorney s Office does not refer as many cases to the US Attorney s Office as it otherwise would. When a Lancaster County law enforcement officer has to appear in a proceeding in the Eastern District (Philadelphia), to testify, transport evidence, or transport reluctant witnesses, that officer s department essentially loses that officer for the day, and in essence pays him or her to spend hours in a car instead of on the job in Lancaster protecting our citizens. By contrast, because of the much shorter commute to Harrisburg, law enforcement officers can go to Harrisburg and still get back for the majority of their shift. In addition, it is the experience of Lancaster law enforcement that due to volume and administrative rules, it is also much more difficult to get a case approved for prosecution in the Eastern District than in the Middle District. The Lancaster District Attorney s Office estimates that it would file cases a year in federal court if Lancaster County is moved to the Middle District. Of further note, all federal habeas corpus and appellate proceedings now take place in the federal court, which currently for Lancaster County means the Eastern District. Moreover, while Lancaster County is in the Eastern District, all federal law enforcement agencies that serve Lancaster County, including the FBI, DEA, and ICE, are based in Harrisburg. The ICE office assigned to Lancaster covers nine (9) counties and Lancaster is the only one not in the Middle District. Lancaster is also part of the FBI Capital City Violent Crimes Task Force, and the FBI Crimes vs. Children Task Force, both based out of Harrisburg. The Lancaster County Chiefs Association fully supports the move to the Middle District because it will save department and taxpayer resources and will enhance public safety. The US Attorney for the Middle District has stated that a move by Lancaster County to the Middle District would make sense and is long overdue. History The committee has been advised that when Lancaster County was placed in the Eastern District, the choice was between Scranton and Philadelphia; Harrisburg was not a viable alternative. Because Philadelphia was closer, it was the clear choice. Now that Harrisburg 3

4 is operational and viable, the historical reasons behind Lancaster County s assignment to the Eastern District no longer exist. Court Management of Cases According to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts on behalf of the Federal Judiciary, the average time from filing to disposition for civil cases in the Eastern District, for the last six years (ending June 30 of each year), has been 5.8 months, versus 8.2 months for the Middle District. From filing to trial, the average time for civil cases in the Eastern District, for the same period of time, has been 20.7 months, versus 30.2 months for the Middle District. By contrast, the Eastern District has a much higher percentage than the Middle District of cases that are three years old or more. The committee has been advised that the reason for this is that the Eastern District has the largest volume of Multi-District-Litigation cases (i.e., large class actions), which take much longer than other types of cases to process. Since this type of case is not typically filed from Lancaster, the committee does not believe this factor is relevant. Transfer of a Judge Because of the difference in filing to disposition and filing to trial times in the Eastern and Middle Districts, the committee believes that if the LBA were to recommend the transfer of Lancaster County from the Eastern to the Middle District, the LBA should also request the transfer of a judge from the Eastern District to the Middle District, to avoid any increase in the times to trial or other disposition in the Middle District, and hopefully to lessen or eliminate the difference between those times in the Middle and Eastern Districts respectively. Bankruptcy Cases The committee has been advised that in the Eastern District, the first meeting of creditors for Lancaster cases is done by video conference, for the convenience of the parties and counsel. Chief Judge Conner of the Middle District has advised Judge Stengel that if Lancaster cases were transferred to the Middle District, he (Chief Judge Conner) believes that the same accommodation (video conference) could be arranged. Personal Injury Case Values Some members of the LBA have expressed their concern that personal injury cases would (or might) receive lower verdicts and settlements in the Middle District, compared to the Eastern. The committee, however, has not received any data on this. It has only received anecdotal information from several sources that runs contra to the above concern. A Lancaster defense attorney who handles cases for a major liability insurer in both the Eastern and Middle Districts, has advised Judge Stengel that the insurer does not value cases lower in the Middle District than in the Eastern: the insurer values cases differently between state courts (Common Pleas) and the E.D.PA and M.D.PA, but not between these two federal courts. 4

5 A claims representative for another major liability insurer has similarly told Judge Stengel that his insurer does not value cases lower in the Middle District than the Eastern. A federal magistrate in the Eastern District, who communicates with his colleagues in the Middle District, has told Judge Stengel that his impression is consistent with the above. The committee recognizes the limits of this anecdotal information. The bottom line is that the committee has no hard information one way or the other on this issue. An additional consideration as to case values (verdicts and settlements) is that federal cases originating in Lancaster (i.e., as the place of the accident or loss) are now assigned to the Eastern District s Northern Wheel, comprised of the judges who sit in Reading, Allentown, and Easton. While jury selection for these cases is done in Philadelphia, jurors are excused for cause if getting to Reading, Allentown, or Easton would present a hardship, and this can and does result, in those cases, in losing jurors from Philadelphia County, who are believed to be more liberal in their personal injury awards. If that belief is true, the assignment of Lancaster County cases to the Northern Wheel might lessen any difference between the verdict potential of Lancaster cases in the Eastern and Middle Districts. The committee has also taken note of the number of Lancaster County personal injury cases that have been filed in the Eastern District in the last three years. In 2014, there were 23 such filings, in 2015 there were 22, and in 2016 there were 13. Lancaster Culture The committee has received competing claims on this issue, with some lawyers contending that Lancaster County residents identify more with people in the Eastern District compared to the Middle, and other lawyers contending the opposite. The committee knows of no way to make an objective determination of which side, if either, is correct on this, and questions whether there is in fact only one truth on it. It would seem questionable to place one culture identification label on all residents of Lancaster County. Many things could affect whether a person identifies more with Philadelphia or Harrisburg, and those things will not be the same for all persons. Even the part of the county where the person lives could make the difference: persons from the eastern part of the country may have a stronger identification with the culture Philadelphia and its surrounding counties, while persons from the western part of the county have a stronger one with Harrisburg and its environs. Conclusion On balance, the committee believes that the convenience and law enforcement considerations tip the scale in favor of recommending a move to the Middle District. The only objective factors that the committee sees weighing against that recommendation are the longer times from filing to trial or other disposition in the Middle District, but these differences are a matter of months (2.4 for filing to disposition, and 10 for filing to trial) and could be improved with the addition of a federal judge to the Middle District. The differences in convenience and law enforcement considerations, by contrast, cannot be remedied. 5

6 The committee has considered the concern about personal injury case values that some LBA members have raised, but as noted above, the committee has no objective data as to whether there is a difference in verdict and settlement values between the Eastern and Middle District, or what that difference might be, and the anecdotal evidence is otherwise. In addition, the committee has no objective data on the difference, if any, between verdict and settlement for the Middle District compared with the Northern Wheel cases in the Eastern District, which is the comparison the committee feels would be most apt. Finally, even if there were some difference in some case values between the two districts, the committee, in attempting to balance the competing considerations on a transfer of Lancaster County to the Middle District, has considered the relatively small number of Lancaster County personal injury cases that have been filed in the Eastern District in the past three years, and the significant decline in such filings in the past year. The committee also believes, however, that since the LBA Board of Directors would be speaking for the entire LBA in making any recommendation, the issue should be put to the LBA membership for a vote, after this report is provided to all LBA members for their review. The vote would be advisory, not binding, but should be given serious weight by the LBA Board in any decision that it ultimately makes. 6