Previous Story
Court grants preliminary examination for juveniles
|
Posted on Feb 10 2020
The Superior Court granted Friday a preliminary hearing for two juveniles who were arrested for alleged burglary and theft despite having already been arraigned.
Superior Court Associate judge Joseph N. Camacho ordered that the two juveniles, although already charged with burglary, theft, and conspiracy to commit theft, are still entitled to a preliminary hearing or preliminary examination even though they already had an arraignment hearing.
Camacho has yet to set a preliminary hearing date for the juveniles.
A preliminary hearing or preliminary examination is usually conducted before an arraignment to weed out groundless claims and determine whether there is probable cause to prosecute a defendant. An arraignment, on the other hand, is where the complaint is read to the defendant stating the substance of the charges and allowing them to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty.
A preliminary examination hearing is held within 10 days after the initial appearance and before the arraignment hearing.
According to Camacho, although a preliminary examination is typically held before an arraignment, relevant statutes and rules are silent as to whether a defendant can have a preliminary examination after an arraignment.
Also, because the Commonwealth does not employ grand juries like federal courts, a preliminary hearing is the only judicial mechanism available to defendants in the Commonwealth to determine probable cause prior to trial.
According to court documents, the juveniles were arrested and detained on April 2, 2019.
The matter was set for a preliminary hearing on April 11, 2019, but there was no time on the set date for a preliminary hearing.
Therefore, on April 11, the defense counsels, assistant public defender Heather Zona and Steven Pixley, and assistant attorney general Frances Demapan agreed that the juveniles could be arraigned on April 15, 2019, as scheduled.
The preliminary hearing was then pushed back to April 26, 2019, but the court was later concerned about whether the juvenile defendants are entitled to a preliminary hearing because the juveniles had already been arraigned.
