Why don’t we just shut down the courts?

Why is it that we don't just shut down our courts? How important is your right to equality? How much is access to justice for you and your loved ones worth to you? What if you had no courts to resolve dispute or seek redress for wrongs against you?

If you replace the word "courts" with hospitals, police/fire departments, and grocery stores in recent rhetoric by some calling for the courts to close, such a notion is absurd. These entities provide essential services to secure public safety and health. Open courts protect the civil and due process rights of our diverse community. Lest anyone forget: Superior court judges and staff are essential workers. They stand ready to assist the domestic violence victim, a criminal defendant in custody awaiting trial, the child or elder adult needing a guardian, and all persons who seek a lawful solution to the harms they have suffered. The courts are not a luxury.

Our court system has experienced momentary closures due to earthquakes, fires, civil unrest and terrorism. These short-lived closures were mere blips compared to the enduring nature of this pandemic. In March 2020, courthouses and the clerk's office in Los Angeles closed except for restraining orders, criminal arraignments and juvenile courts. Amid the abrupt onset of the pandemic and the flurry of changes in public health guidance, court leaders met with county health officials as they sought to reorganize with safety measures, implement remote courtroom appearance options and adopt a comprehensive Here For You / Safe For You initiative. As the crisis deepened, many clamored for restored access to justice. The presiding judge sought approval from the chief justice and issued no fewer than 24 emergency orders to adjust the court to the crisis and to restore safe services in consultation with county health officials.

Critics of how the court system is handling the delivery of justice in this unprecedented pandemic mean well. But, as it is with the conflicts that bring parties to a courthouse, the agendas of individual litigants seldom consider the needs of the entire community and dangerously request the court to ignore those in need of justice and the rule of law. Attacks and attempts to shut down the courts are a new and destructive approach seen recently in other politics. But shutting down the courts would endanger the court's mandate to protect the rights of all seeking redress within that system.

In a recently filed lawsuit, critics use the fact that Presiding Judge Eric C. Taylor asked for prioritization in vaccine delivery for judicial officers, staff and justice partners. They contend this request reflects absolute proof that there are pervasive COVID dangers in courthouses. Untrue. As essential workers, vaccination would offer an added protection, and like other essential workers, they deserve to serve the public as safely as possible to keep the doors of justice open to everyone. In fact, these safeguards have resulted in a court infection rate about 1.4% lower than the rate countywide.

How has this been achieved?

To keep everyone safe while balancing the need to dispense justice, the court's actions are nothing short of herculean. Procedures are in place to limit crowding and exposure to COVID. All 600 courtrooms in L.A. have the capability to conduct remote appearances with 4,500 daily remote appearances. Further, low-income parties may request a fee waiver, which are typically granted.

Just like the supermarket, courthouse signage requires everyone entering to wear a mask. Hand sanitizer is provided, and social distancing markers indicate where to sit or stand. Plexiglas barriers are ubiquitous. Appointments are made in advance to obtain in-person services. Calendars in all courtrooms are staggered and significantly reduced from pre-COVID levels. Court employees work from home, if feasible. Although there have been no jury trials since the depths of the holiday surge, the court has eliminated jury waiting rooms, instead calling small batches of jurors directly to courtrooms when a case is ready, and then only the number of jurors that it can safely accommodate under county public health protocols.

These measures have resulted in a 65% reduction in court users present in the hallways and courtrooms throughout 38 courthouses countywide. However, that number does not reflect that all these efforts minimize the number of persons in courthouses present throughout a given day. Unfortunately, the right of in-person public access has given way to greater remote access for litigants and observers but balanced with the absolute need to keep courts open to those in need.

The saying that "justice delayed is justice denied" may be trite, but it's true. For example, a jury trial for an in-custody felony defendant must commence within 60 days of arraignment absent an express speedy trial waiver by the defendant. Securing this right is critical to our democracy's belief in the presumption of innocence and its abhorrence of a deprivation of liberty in addition to all found in the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution.

Critics decry keeping traffic courts open because of a belief that the court has put the collection of fines and fees before public safety. Untrue. Court orders and procedures for traffic defendants with a citation reflect a sensitivity to the ravages of this pandemic. Automatic extensions are granted without the need to appear in person. No holds are placed on licenses. Traffic litigants may request a trial by declaration to have their case tried in writing at no cost. Novel "ability to pay' petitions, if granted, will permit community service in lieu of a fine.

It cannot be emphasized enough: Trials are calendared by the traffic defendant, not the court. In short, no traffic defendant need appear in person. Indeed, the court's website features an award-winning avatar in multiple languages. Even if an in-person appearance is required or desired by the traffic defendant, the already large traffic courtrooms are utilized with reduced and staggered appearance calendars.

Critics decry the court's handling of eviction cases, particularly with respect to low-income tenants. Their criticism is misplaced. The deadlines for and requirements of expedient eviction trials are not regulated by the court, but the legislature. The court does not have the power to write laws, only the duty to enforce them within all protections afforded litigants. Because remote appearances can be cost-free to qualifying parties, dissemination of this information is critical. All legal aid organizations, bar associations, and city/county governments should get the word out and to devise a way to provide those without the technological resources to safely access online services. Perhaps they should consider providing free outdoor kiosks near government buildings, supermarkets, local neighborhood council district offices rather than criticize the courts?

In closing, nothing written here is intended to minimize the ravages of this unprecedented pandemic to the family, loved ones, and friends of those who have died. Truly, the deaths of all essential workers -- doctors, nurses, police officers, paramedics, hospital support workers, grocery store clerks, court interpreters -- due to COVID-19 are tragedies. While it is a small consolation to those who loved them, in having provided crucial and indispensable services for the good of our community, they are all heroes. 