I must
respectfully disagree with this newspaper, many of my fellow legal brethren and
others that the recent action of the Washington County President Judge was
obstructionist. In my view, her decision
to file a Motion to Quash the Subpoena, attempting to compel her testimony at
the Pozonsky Suppression Hearing, was appropriate.
The O-R certainly
has a vested interest in uncovering as much background as possible on the
events leading up to the seizure of evidence from former Judge Pozonsky’s
courtroom. That is its job. The rest of us would love disclosure of
additional facts to fill in an ongoing story that is more interesting than a
Grisham or Turow novel. Nonetheless,
having President Judge O’Dell Seneca testify on her own volition or compelling
her to do so would be a mistake.
American
jurisprudence has developed well accepted guidelines for judicial review which
do not include the ability to subpoena judges in order to look behind their
orders. To permit an exception in this case, simply because the order is
administrative rather than a matter of substantive law would open up a
dangerous can of worms that, in my opinion, goes to the heart of our separation
of powers.
No one believes
that the President Judge did not have the authority to enter her order, which
is clear and concise on its face. The
important issue is not why she did it, but whether Pozonsky’s rights have been
violated by not obtaining a search warrant.
This issue can be resolved without her testimony. If the subpoena is quashed and Defendant,
Pozonsky, files an appeal, so be it. It
is important to get this one right before creating a dangerous precedent.
Before we label
the President Judge “imperial” and “obstructionist”, it is important to
remember that ethical considerations prohibit her from leaping to her defense
as other elected officials are permitted to do.
It is safe to assume that she conferred with other judges that have
faced the same or similar circumstances.
Moreover, the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC) must
serve as her legal representative in considering, drafting and presenting the
Motion to Quash the Subpoena. The AOPC
is obviously in agreement with the Judge and reports directly to the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court which, no doubt, is keeping a close eye on these proceedings.
