Eyes on Philadelphia's Busiest Criminal Courtroom

Philadelphia’s preliminary arraignment court is likely the least glamorous in the city. It is held deep in the basement of the Stout Center for Criminal Justice in a windowless room that sees almost no outside attention. At any given moment, there is a maximum of five people in the courtroom and a likely empty observation gallery. Despite its meager appearance, this courtroom is responsible for shaping the lives of hundreds of defendants every week by deciding who is allowed to return home, and who is sent ”up state road.” Concern about this court arises, however, as it has the potential to become a dehumanized assembly line of lost defendants pushed through the process. Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts shares this concern, and through our PMC in the Community Bail Watch program, aims to bring community volunteers into this courtroom to share their observations and reflections on the process. This is done to increase the transparency of the court, ensure defendants are given respectful and proper treatment and collect data on which aspects of preliminary arraignment need reform.

What are our volunteers looking for when observing preliminary arraignment? First, the treatment of the defendants while in court. Defendants are not physically present in Philadelphia’s preliminary arraignment, but rather they are CCTV’ed in from whichever respective police district they are held. They appear on a screen, after being held in a cell and only speaking to police and pretrial services. Defendants have not spoken to an attorney and either appear at their arraignment with no understanding of what is happening or are all too familiar with it. We ask our volunteers “Do you think the defendant understood what was happening?” and, “Were the defendants’ questions or concerns addressed, if they had any?”. The use of CCTV as opposed to in-person arraignments has resulted in several issues on this front. For example, when someone in the courtroom does not have their microphone plugged in or does not speak directly into the microphone, the defendant is unable to know what is happening with their case. Some days the equipment can be faulty, and the defendant and Judge may not be able to see one another, resulting in more misunderstanding. As one representative from the defender’s association pointed out after one of these cases, if a case involves a physical altercation, the Judge would not be able to see if there are any marks or bruises on the defendant.