SAN JOSE – AUGUST 10: People gather outside of the Hall of Justice in San Jose, Calif., on Monday, Aug. 10, 2020. (Randy Vazquez/ Bay Area News Group)
SAN JOSE — With strict COVID-19 stay-home orders now in effect, the Santa Clara County Superior Court has begun strictly limiting entries to its primary judicial buildings and will hold off starting trials until at least the new year, officials said.
The suspension of jury empaneling means that any county resident who was scheduled to report for jury duty between now and Jan. 4 is no longer required to do so, with their service postponed to an unspecified later date.
But that also means jailed defendants could see more court delays in a year where cases often crawled through the system as the state courts scrambled to adjust to surges in the COVID-19 pandemic. The court said there is one ongoing trial, involving a felony domestic violence case, that will be allowed to continue this month.
The restrictions come into effect as the Bay Area and California continue to break infection records, which combined with grave concerns about the availability of intensive-care beds has spurred stay-home orders and indoor-capacity limits that had not been seen since the early days of the pandemic in March.
Last week, the court issued an order paving the way for allowing only people — other than court staff — with essential business to enter its courthouses, meaning people who were direct parties in cases like lawyers, defendants and witnesses. Starting this week, court deputies and staff have instituted metering practices to ensure that the court keeps as close to 20% capacity as possible, though there is latitude on account of the courts being deemed essential infrastructure.
“Given the skyrocketing COVID numbers, we are pleased to see that the court will be implementing a metering and capacity plan, using the deputies that are already in the building to ensure safe numbers of properly masked people are entering the Hall of Justice — something we have been asking the court to implement for months,” County Public Defender Molly O’Neal said.
Still, she added that she remains concerned about ensuring that even with capacity limited, that measures are taken to prevent crowding given that some courts, like those for criminal arraignments, have heavy caseloads in a single location.
The District Attorney’s Office was succinct when asked to weigh in on the court’s decisions: “During this unprecedented public health emergency, we support actions that save lives and keep our hospitals functioning.”
Those expected to be impacted by the new restrictive order include families and support advocates for criminal defendants, and residents who relied on the clerk’s office for essential legal defense file access and research. Critics have lamented that losing public access to files, and the inadequacy of court teleconferencing both in clarity and in exhibiting strong community interest in a case diminish the quality of justice.
“Maintaining court access and availability is critical to protecting children, victims of domestic violence and other crimes, people in locked facilities including those incarcerated, and all parties who have disputes and other matters needing resolution,” Presiding Judge Deborah Ryan said in a statement. “The Court continues to strike a balance between the right of access to justice and the health and safety of all of us in the community.”
Contra Costa County courts instituted similar measures last week. As of Tuesday, Alameda, San Mateo and San Francisco counties had not issued any court access restrictions dovetailing with existing county health orders.
Since March, state and local courts have issued a raft of emergency orders to limit crowding in courthouses, as law enforcement and public defenders have worked to decrease jail populations, all with the intent of minimizing COVID-19 spread and outbreak risks.
Many of those measures have been unprecedented in terms of their depth and scale: the trial start deadline for defendants invoking their right to a speedy trial was extended from 60 to 90 days, and arraignment windows were temporarily extended from 48 hours to a week. The court established a $0 bail schedule for misdemeanors and some felonies to keep low-level offenders out of jail, which was extended in Santa Clara County and at other individual county courts through the end of the year.
Essential criminal court and family court hearings — mostly those that involve public-safety matters — will be allowed to continue, which O’Neal said gave her some confidence the system will be able to weather the next month.
But it’s undeniable that COVID-19 has introduced numerous intermittent and unpredictable delays in case calendars, which has incensed many attorneys and advocates who represent in-custody defendants, a population at heightened risk for infection given the impossibility of consistent physical distancing in jail.
“If the courts are going to deny people the right to have a speedy trial, continuing cases for more than 30 days because of COVID – then they must release them! You can still go Xmas shopping but you cannot fight your case to gain your freedom. This is not justice!” Alameda County Public Defender Brendon Woods wrote in a tweet Tuesday.
Check back later for updates to this story.
Bay Area court information
Up-to-date information on local Superior Court closures and restrictions can be found at their respective websites:
