With an eye on gradually increasing judicial activity, the Santa Clara County Superior Court is now requiring face masks be worn in its courthouses until further notice, joining a number of South Bay jurisdictions who have issued similar edicts amid the coronavirus pandemic.
A general order signed Tuesday by Presiding Judge Deborah Ryan requires “that all persons, including Court staff and judicial officers, who enter the courthouses must wear a face covering in all public areas of the court and shared work spaces. Face coverings may include a mask, scarf, or any other cloth material that covers both the nose and mouth. Any person without a face covering may be denied entry to the courthouse or a courtroom.”
The order — and others like it in Milpitas, Cupertino and now Palo Alto — is necessitated by the fact that Santa Clara County is the only Bay Area county to forego a face-covering requirement, opting instead for a “strong recommendation” to do so. The county’s Public Health Department side-stepped a strict mandate with the aim of not adding additional enforcement burdens to local police.
Effective May 13, a Palo Alto city order requires “all members of the public to wear face coverings when outside their home for any type of permitted activity, such as shopping at an essential business or obtaining medical care,” according to a city news release. The statement added that “face coverings are not required, but are encouraged, when engaging in outdoor recreation such as walking, hiking, running or biking.”
Both the city and the county courts also issued advisories reinforcing the need to routinely maintain social distancing of at least 6 feet. Their new face-mask requirements also acknowledge the current understanding that COVID-19 spreads primarily through respiratory droplets, and the occurrence of asymptomatic infection.
In county courthouses, which have begun to gradually increase the types and number of proceedings they are hearing on site, the general order requiring face-masks carves out latitude for judges and judicial commissioners to exempt themselves and certain parties on a case-by-case basis.
Some causes for exemptions, the order states, would allow judges “to remove their face coverings for periods of time for purposes such as ensuring the court reporter and/or electronic recording device can clearly report or record the proceedings and any other communication that occurs in the courtroom.” In those cases where a face covering would not be worn, physical distancing of at least 6 feet is required, per the order.
That might be troubling some who have criticized the consistency of adherence to the protective measures in court. A South Bay criminal-defense attorney told this news organization Monday that a lack of social distancing and mask-wearing by attorneys, bailiffs and court officers was a common sight at the limited court hearings still being held during the state of emergency and shelter-in-place orders.
But much of the thinking that went into the exemption discretion, court sources said, have to do with maintaining the integrity of the criminal-justice process. For instance, having trial witnesses and defendants wearing face coverings obscures facial expressions that could affect how jurors and attorneys ascribe credibility to their in-court testimony. Additionally, some court reporters also rely on lip-reading to supplement their rapid transcribing of in-court dialogue.
The court order also has some allowance for someone besides a judge to offer their reasoning for not wearing a mask, but a judge would have to sign off on such an exception, and could have that person observe court proceedings from a distance or through a remote method such as a listen-only teleconference line.
Check back later for updates to this story.
