In re Tranquilli
| Decision Date | 03 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 4 JD 2020,4 JD 2020 |
| Parties | IN RE: Judge Mark V. Tranquilli Court of Common Pleas 5th Judicial District Allegheny County |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
AND NOW comes the above-captioned Respondent, through his undersigned counsel of record, pursuant to the Court of Judicial Discipline Rules of Procedure, to respectfully submit this brief in support of Respondent's Verified Petition for Relief regarding this Honorable Court's Per Curiam Order of August 26, 2020, whereof the following is a statement:
I. INTRODUCTION
Respondent acknowledges that the allegations contained in the Board's complaint raise serious and significant concerns. Even at this earliest of stages in these proceedings, Respondent acknowledges that he wishes to accept responsibility for certain accusations and he submits that he should be permitted to do so through the public process and procedures governing this Honorable Court. There are, however, certain material allegations in the Board's complaint that are simply incorrect and, similarly, Respondent seeks the opportunity to have a full, complete and fair adjudication of this matter.
Presently, for the reasons set forth herein, Respondent seeks relief from this Court's August 26, 2020 Per Curiam Order and he asserts that a required adjudication of record evidence compels re-examination of the same.
II. FACTUAL1 BACKGROUND
Respondent has served as a trial judge in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County since January 2014 by virtue of being elected by the voters of Allegheny County in the 2013 general election. During his tenure on the bench, Respondent has never been previously charged by the Judicial Conduct Board ("Board" or "JCB"). Respondent has never been the subject of criminal charges nor have any allegations of criminal activity or corruption ever been lodged against Respondent.
A. Respondent's tenure as a trial judge who most recently presided over numerous jury trials under the SOC docket - cases involving consistent graphic and disturbing testimony.
The Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County encompasses the entirety of the Fifth Judicial District of Pennsylvania and is the second largest judicial district in our Commonwealth in terms of number of judges and cases. As such, the President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County maintains a permanent seat on the Judicial Council of Pennsylvania. See Pa.R.J.A. No. 301(b)(7).
Additionally, given the volume of cases and the size of the population served, this court is divided into four departments: civil division, criminal division, family division andorphans' division with each being led by an Administrative Judge. See Fifth Judicial District of Pennsylvania 2018 Annual Report.
Immediately following his investiture, on January 6, 2014, pursuant to Rule of Judicial Administration 702(1), then President Judge and now President Judge Emeritus Jeffrey A. Manning assigned Respondent to serve in the court's family division which was supervised by then Administrative Judge and now President Judge Kim Berkeley Clark. During his tenure in the family division, Respondent divided his time between the juvenile section, hearing mostly criminal delinquency and dependency matters, and the adult section, hearing mostly child custody and divorce cases.
Based on Respondent's record of service in the family division, his experience and the needs of the court, on January 3, 2018, pursuant to Rule of Judicial Administration 702(2), then President Judge Manning transferred Respondent to the court's criminal division.
Upon his transfer to the criminal division, Respondent was assigned to serve as one of (then) three judges hearing cases on the Sex Offender Court ("SOC") docket. With the support and guidance of our Supreme Court, SOC was created as a specialty court in order to provide for fair and speedy disposition of cases involving charges of rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, indecent assault, corruption of minors, child pornography and the like.
Respondent's robust docket of SOC cases often resulted in jury trials due, in large part, to the burden of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (also known as "Megan's Law"). See 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9799.10 - 9799.41. In addition to hearing cases on theSOC docket. Respondent was also assigned an allotted allocation of criminal cases involving a wide range of criminal charges.
Importantly, most cases over which Respondent presided during his tenure as a trial judge assigned to SOC court in the criminal division involved graphic and highly disturbing evidence, often involving child victims.
Throughout his tenure as a trial judge in the criminal division, Respondent maintained a diligent work ethic as evidenced, in part, by the quantity of jury trials over which Respondent presided. In his first year as a criminal division judge, Respondent presided over twenty-four jury trials - more jury trials, by a significant margin, than Respondent's colleagues, apart from the other two judges who were then assigned to the SOC docket.
At the conclusion of this first year, the number of judges assigned to the SOC docket was reduced from three to two and based, again, on Respondent's experience, record of service and needs of the court, Respondent was assigned as one of the two remaining judges hearing cases on the SOC docket. In 2019, Respondent presided over twenty-six jury trials - again, except for his fellow colleague who was also assigned to the SOC docket, Respondent presided over a significant plurality of the jury trials heard in the criminal division that year (approximately twenty-seven percent of that year's criminal jury trials).
Significantly, in the month of January 2020 alone, Respondent presided over four jury trials - one each week with the jury returning verdicts late in the day on three consecutive Fridays.
The jury trial in the case of Commonwealth v. Rice, CP-02-CR-4083-2017, over which Respondent presided, was the third jury trial with the verdict returned late on Friday,January 24, 2020 - allegations concerning Respondent's discussion with the prosecutor and defense lawyer following the discharge of this jury are the genesis of this case.
III. ARGUMENT
Respondent respectfully requests that this Honorable Court restore the status quo and adjudicate the Board's Petition for Relief for Interim Suspension through implementation of this Court's prior procedures in like circumstances. In conjunction with such requested adjudication, Respondent seeks to be heard with respect to the Court's expedited scheduling considering well-established processes set forth in this Court's rules of procedure. Moreover, significant due process considerations under the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions require reconsideration of this Court's August 26, 2020 Per Curiam Order.
As initially set forth here and as will be more fully developed should the Court grant the relief requested in the instant petition, Respondent humbly suggests that the Board has not (and will not) meet its burden to prove that the totality of the circumstances requires suspension without pay. In re Melvin, 57 A.3d 226, 238 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. 1998); see also In re Smith, 712 A.2d 849, 852 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. 1998) ().
status quo under which Respondent was prohibited from presiding over cases by virtue of a February 6, 2020 Order of Court entered in consultation with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court pursuant to its supervisory and King's Bench powers.
Importantly, however, prior to a discussion and analysis of this Court's past practices and required considerations in adjudicating an interim suspension petition, Respondent suggests that should this Court allow for presentation of record evidence in an adjudication of the Board's interim suspension petition; due weight be should be given to a critical fact absent from the Board's petition and, therefore, unknown to this Court when it entered its August 26, 2020 Per Curiam Order.
Since the outset of the Judicial Conduct Board's investigation of Respondent and continuing until this Court's August 26, 2020 Per Curiam Order, Respondent has been under a de facto suspension with pay, approved by our Supreme Court, by virtue of President Judge Clark's February 6, 2020 Order of Court:
Image materials not available for display.
In re Tranquilli, No. AD-20-59-PJ (Feb. 6, 2020).
Importantly, President Judge Clark entered the above Order of Court after consultation with the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts and our Supreme Court following her initial, February 3, 2020 Order of Court which, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Judicial Administration 702(2), re-assigned Respondent from the criminal division of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas to its summary appeals docket:
Image materials not available for display.
In re Tranquilli, No. AD-20-40-PJ (Feb. 3, 2020).
Indeed, the initial, February 3, 2020 Order of Court that was sent to the Justices of our Supreme Court, was made "subject to approval and further Order by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania." Id. Our Supreme Court's actions and discussions with President Judge Clark regarding the instant factual circumstances, as contemplated in the February 3, 2020 Order of Court and which resulted in the February 6, 2020 Order of Court, were entirely appropriate and proper given our Supreme Court's supervisory authority underArticle V, Section 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and its King's Bench powers. See In re Bruno, 101 A.3d 635, 687 (Pa. 2014) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial