Kids for Cash
Summarizing William Ecenbarger’s “Kids for Cash”
William Ecenbarger’s “Kids for Cash” chronicles 2009 scandal of two judges involved in the largest judicial corruption scandal in American history. Starting in 2003, Mark A. Ciavarella and Michael T. Conahan, two northern Pennsylvania judges, made a deal with private juvenile corrections facilities co-owned by Robert Powell and built by Robert Mericle in which they would sentence juveniles to serve time in their facility in exchange for kickbacks. Over 2,500 children, involved in more than 6,000 cases, were sentenced to these juvenile facilities for minor, often non-violent offenses. Not only did these judges manipulate and ruin the lives of the children they sentenced, but they manipulated and compromised the integrity the entire court system as well. Furthermore, Ecenbarger (2012) argues that it wasn’t just the judges and correction facility that were at fault in this matter, but the entire court system of fellow judges and staff who let this injustice carry on for years.
As the book unfolds from chapter to chapter, Ecenbarger (2012) lays out the systematic and cultural web of corruption and permissiveness that allowed to Ciavarella and Conahan to abuse their judicial power. This web included district attorneys, court staff, probation officers, and private attorneys who stood by and allowed these judges to do as they pleased (Worden & Wilson, 2010). Some of these individuals even embraced the judge’s overtly harsh judicial practices, as they were deemed “no-nonsense” and tough on crime. Even those who testified against the judges before the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice, a state commission formed by the Pennsylvania legislative body to investigate the judicial system in Luzerne County, assumed that the judges’ practices were standard across the American judicial system. They asked no questions despite the fact that adjudication and placement hearings only lasted several minutes. Ecenbarger (2012) points out that this mentality might be attributed to the region’s history of organized crime, especially within Pennsylvania’s coal industry. In considering this, it is easy to account for the lack of awareness and accountability that allowed Ciavarella and Conahan to carry on their corrupt practices for years at a time.
In addition to outlining the systematic incompetency of the Luzerne County judicial system, Ecenbarger (2012) follows several adolescents that fell victim to this incompetency. This includes Matthew, a seventh grader who spent 48 days in a juvenile facility after his mother claimed that he through a steak at her boyfriend (McKim, 2012). Even though Matthew had no prior criminal record, Judge Ciavarella had the boy handcuffed, shackled, and subjected him to a sentence fit for serious offenders. After the ordeal, Ecenbarger (2012) reports that Matthew suffered from emotional and behavioral problems.
Other teens victimized by Luzerne County’s crooked judicial system included 17-year-old Edward (Ecenbarger, 2012). Edward was sentenced to four months in a military style boot camp by Ciavarella after being caught with drug paraphernalia. His parents tipped off the police and planted the paraphernalia in his truck in order to scare him and keep him from “hanging out with the wrong crowd.” Despite the fact that his parents explained to the judge their intentions and had faculty from his high school write letters of recommendation for the boy, Ciavarella showed no mercy. Edwards mother, Sandy Fonzo argues that after such a harsh sentence, her son was never the same and began to spiral out of control. Upon the completion of his sentence, Edward was placed on probation, which he subsequently violated when he got into a fight. Assault charges were filed against him and he fled to Florida. The law caught up to him two years later and was once again sentenced to a juvenile facility by Ciavarella. Even after he was released from this facility, he continued to get into trouble with the law. In 2006, after he turned 20, Edward beat up another young man in a bar brawl. For this offense, he was sentenced to 10 years in prison. He was released in 2010 on parole, but Edward thought it was too late to start fresh and fell into alcoholism and depression. The young man shot himself in the chest the same year. Surely, Ciavarella did not force Edward to turn to a life of crime; however, the judge played his part in mentally unraveling an initially innocent teenager.
Not only were children in this scandal subjected to unjust sentences, 50% of the cases like Matthew and Edward’s went before Judge Ciavarella had no legal representation; this left adolescents who weren’t old enough to vote, to act as their own legal counsel (Ecenbarger, 2012). Additionally, 60% of children who were tried by Judge Ciavarella were removed from their homes and away from their parents. In doing so, these children’s civil rights were grossly disregarded and violated. To make matters worse, in the event that the parents of these children were unable to pay the costs of the detention center, Ciavarella and Conahan would sometimes lengthen the children’s sentences or try to garnish wages (Smith, 2013).
In considering Ciavarella and Conahan’s five-year reign of victimization, what exactly brought this situation to a head (Ecenbarger, 2012)?
Several whistleblowers were responsible for calling public attention to Ciavarella and Conahan’s injustices. This includes members of the local press, a family court judge, a local fraud examiner, and complaints from frantic parents who prompted an investigation into accusations of wrongdoing by the court (McKim, 2012; Smith, 2013). Soon after these complaints, lawyers from the Juvenile Law Center, a nonprofit organization, launched an investigation into Luzerne County’s juvenile court system and the public was made aware of the racketeering, extortion, and bribery that the two judges were participating in at the expense of children and adolescents. Additionally, they petitioned the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to intervene in Luzerne County to stop the judges and their cronies from violating the children’s civil rights. Even though the petition was initially denied, it was later reconsidered when the U.S. district attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania filed charges against Conahan and Ciavarella.
As a result of their actions, both Ciavarella and Conahan were indicted for their crimes on September 9th, 2009 (Ecenbarger, 2012; Morgan-Besecker, 2009). The federal grand jury in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania handed down the indictment, citing 48 counts of not only bribery and extortion, but money laundering and federal tax violations as well. Not surprisingly, Ciavarella and Conahan replied to the indictment by entering pleas of not guilty. While the prosecution thought it was fitting that the judges spend time in jail before their criminal trial, neither Ciavarella nor Conahan had a problem is paying the 1 million dollar bail that was set for their release. The prosecutors argued that because of the seriousness of the accusations, and because it was likely that the judges would face additional charges, that the bail should be raised significantly higher than 1 million dollars.
In addition to the indictment of Ciavarella and Conahan, several others were arraigned for their part in the “Kids for Cash” scandal (Ecenbarger, 2012). This not only includes Robert Powell and Robert Mericle, the aforementioned co-owner and builder of the two juvenile facilities, but Sandra Brulo as well (Dale, 2009; Sisak, 2009). Powell and Mericle were indicted for bribing Ciavarella and Conahan with $770,000 to $2.1 million worth of kickbacks, failing to report a felony, and tax evasion. Both Mericle and Powell plead guilty to these accusations. In Mericle’s plea, he agreed to contribute over 2 million dollars to support children’s health and welfare programs in and around Luzerne County. Brulo, the previous Deputy Director of Forensic Services for the Juvenile Probation Office in Luzerne County, also entered a guilty plea for obstructing justice.
After a three-year trial, Mark Ciavarella was convicted on 12 counts of racketeering, tax evasion, and money laundering. With that being said, he was acquitted of extortion and bribery with regard to the bribes that they allegedly received from Powell and Mericle (Ecenbarger, 2012). Even so, Ciavarella was sentenced to 28 years in federal prison for his crimes. Conahan changed his plea to guilty with regard to racketeering. Like Ciavarella, he was convicted and sentenced to 17 ½ years in federal prison. Ciavarella and Conahan’s racketeering sidekicks Robert Powell and Robert Mericle also received prison sentences and fines for their part in the scandal. Both Powell and Mericle served sentences that were under two years.
Not only were the people responsible in the “Kids for Cash” brought to justice, but legal retribution was made on behalf of their victims (Ecenbarger, 2012). In 2009, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court followed the Juvenile Law Center’s petition to expunge and dismiss the cases against the juveniles who were tried by Ciavarella and Conahan. From 2003-2008, any juvenile, regardless of whether their sentences were just or not, received a clean slate. To keep this from happening in the future, the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice has outlined a set of 43 recommendations for all officers of the court to follow (Worden & Wilson, 2010). This includes ensuring that juveniles have the option of defense counsel and forcing county and appellate judges into ethics training.
In short, William Ecenbarger’s “Kids for Cash” sheds light on a scandal drenched in greed, extortion, and malpractice. Children who were largely harmless were charged with sentences fit for habitual offenders and gang members (Ecenbarger, 2012). Judges Ciavarella and Conahan took advantage of these children, turning run of the mill adolescent rambunctiousness into serious criminal behavior. In the end, the judges were brought to justice and the children’s records were expunged. For many, however, the damage was already done and their young lives were ruined.
