LOS ANGELES - Attorney Bilal Essayli has had criminal litigation pending with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California since July 2019 and has been trying to bring his client’s case to trial since February of this year but the clerk's office won’t summon any jurors to the courthouse.
That’s because of COVID-19 and an Aug. 6 order, suspending jury trials indefinitely until further notice, as previously reported.
“We have a client who, fortunately, is not in custody but he's out on bond with these charges hanging over him,” Essayli told the Southern California Record. “He wants to clear his name but can't. Defense attorneys are always concerned that they’re going to dig up and add more charges, the longer the client is exposed to the system. So, it's not good for him and we have a right to a speedy trial.”
All defendants have a right to a speedy trial under the California Constitution Article I, § 29 but it was ratified in 1849 long before the coronavirus emerged.
“There are real implications to this order,” said Essayli who practices constitutional law as well as being a defense attorney. “Even if our judge wanted to hold the trial, he doesn’t have the discretion to do so because the order states no jury trials."
Chief Judge Philip Guttierez, who signed the court's order, blamed the closure on the coronavirus.
“Due to the recent surge in the Coronavirus cases in the Central District of California, until further notice, and except as set forth below, the Courthouses will be closed to the public,” he stated in the order.
There have been 663,669 cases reported statewide and 12,134 deaths. In Los Angeles County, where two Central District courthouses are located, the number of cases reached 230,858 with 5,537 fatalities as of Aug. 23, according to the Department of Public Health dashboard.
“This is weird territory where the judges have decided on their own that they can suspend that constitutional right because of the coronavirus,” said Essayli.
Judge Guttierez issued the order last week after a vote by the Central District judges. Currently, the courthouse is in Phase 2 of reopening, which allows for limited in-court hearings.
“The Court has adopted gating criteria that will be used to inform when the Court transitions to Phase 3,” Judge Guttierez further noted. “The gating criteria is designed to determine local COVID-19 exposure risks based on 14-day trends of facility exposure, community spread, and community restrictions.”
Judge Guttierez did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
While Essayli would like to move his client’s criminal case forward, he is not willing to do so by Zoom video conferencing.
“The constitution does give the accused the right to confront their witness and, as a defense attorney, I would not be satisfied with a trial by Zoom for many reasons,” he said. “A criminal defendant has the right to haul people into court in person and have them account for their testimony and to also have the jury read their body language. A lot of trials are about the jurors determining credibility and that means body language is important.”
Below are some of the protocols mandated in the Aug. 6 order.
- Until further notice, no jury trials will be conducted in civil cases.
- All appearances in civil cases will be by telephone or video conference.
- Individual judges, at their discretion, may offer bench trials by video conference in lieu of postponement.
- Until further notice, no jury trials will be conducted in criminal cases.
- Hearings in any criminal matter may proceed in court when the defendant does not consent to appear by telephone or video conference.
- Members of the public will have access to such proceedings with a limit of 10 people present in the courtroom or in an overflow courtroom at one time at the discretion of the assigned judge.