By Michael Martin Garrett
The Centre County government may be the defendant in the lawsuits brought by two judges, but the county has gone on the offensive.
In new court documents filed Wednesday, Centre County’s attorney Mary Lou Maierhofer has some strong words for Common Pleas Judge Jonathan Grine and Magisterial District Judge Kelley Gillette-Walker. She accuses the two judges of eroding the public’s faith in the Centre County courts by having personal relationships with prosecutors and filing lawsuits against the county.
“If the public loses faith in the judicial system, then there is no system of justice,” Maierhofer writes on behalf of the county.
Grine and Gillette-Walker filed two separate but very similar lawsuits against the county last month. Both judges claim the county broke the law and violated their privacy by releasing some of their cell phone records to defense attorneys in response to Right to Know requests. In a handful of recent criminal cases, defense attorneys have used records of texts messages and phone calls between judges and prosecutors to argue that some judges are biased towards the district attorney’s office.
But Maierhofer says it’s the judges who are in the wrong. She claims that both Grine and Gilette-Walker have admitted to having an “emotional bond” or “personal connection” to Centre County District Attorney Stacy Parks Miller — which she claims makes the two judges look biased, even if they aren’t.
“The appearance of a court as a fair and impartial entity is of the utmost importance to a democracy,” Maierhofer writes in response to both Grine and Gillette-Walker’s lawsuits. “How can one have this when the judges and district attorneys are communicating without restraint?”
Maierhofer has even harsher words specifically for Grine, accusing him of having “destroyed the appearance of fairness to a once magnificent court system” by filing “self-centered litigation which he conceals under the premise of protecting his privacy.”
Maierhofer asks the court to lift an order filed on March 16 (the same day the judges filed their lawsuits) that currently prevents the release or distribution of the phone records that were obtained through the Right to Know requests.
She also goes over arguments that have been made in other court filings and at an April 2 court hearing in the judges’ lawsuits. Maierhofer argues that the phone records are public financial records because they involve county employees using county-owned phones. She also points out that the records released do not include any information about the contents of the text messages, and that the records are limited to communications between judges and prosecutors.
The judges and their attorneys have argued that the Right to Know law prevents the release of partial telephone numbers, that the phone records do not constitute financial records because they contain no financial figures or information, and that the county had no authority to release what they argue are judicial records.
Attorneys for Grine and Gillette-Walker did not return requests for comment.
Our Clients are entitled to a Bill of Rights which states:
- Our clients have the right to expect, we will be proactive in communication. You will hear it from us first. We will return all phone calls, texts and emails promptly.
- Our clients have the right to expect plain speaking, straight shooting. No B. S.
- Our clients have the right to expect us to do it right the first time, every time.
- Our clients have the right to expect us to be on time and professionally prepared for all court appearances, and all meetings.
- Our clients have the right to expect that they will be fully informed at all times.
This is our promise to you. Call today to get us on your side: (717) 657-3900.
