Missouri Supreme Court issues directives for reopening state's courts

The Missouri Supreme Court issued an order and operational directives earlier this week to help the courts across the state to begin resuming operations.

Most in-person proceedings, except for specified exemptions, have been suspended since March 16 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

As the courts prepare to reopen, the high court’s latest order and its recommended directives call for a three-phase reopening and the establishment of localized plans. It goes into effect on May 16.

“Each circuit court should work with local law enforcement, judiciary partners and county health agencies to ensure that, to the extent possible, courthouse remain accessible to carry out time-sensitive, in-person proceedings and other essential constitutional functions,” the order says.

Presiding Circuit Judge Michael Pritchett will be seeking “input and guidance” May 15 from Butler County Emergency Management Agency Director Robbie Myers, Butler and Ripley County Health Department officials and representatives from the Juvenile Office, Public Defender’s Office, Butler and Ripley County prosecuting attorney’s office, Missouri Children’s Division and Butler and Ripley County commissions, as well as private attorneys, law enforcement and circuit clerks.

“My goal is to gain a consensus in moving forward through the three phases contained in the Supreme Court order,” Pritchett said. “It is my hope that we may proceed to phase one when the Supreme Court order becomes effective on May 16.”

The Supreme Court’s order applies to all appellate and circuit courts, including all associate, family, juvenile, municipal and probate divisions.

Under the new order, court activities reportedly will continue to be restricted in some respect, and the courts are encouraged to use all available technologies to conduct activities remotely to limit the number of in-person proceedings being conducted in the courthouse.

The Supreme Court’s order also establishes “gateway criteria” for the gradual resuming activities previously suspended.

Each of the “gateway criteria” have to be considered before resuming court activity or progressing to the next operating phase.

The criteria are:

• No confirmed COVID-19 cases in the court facility within a 14-day period;

• Rescission or lack of stay-at-home orders or the relaxing of group gathering restrictions applicable to the community;

• Improving COVID-19 health conditions over a 14-day period in the community, including conditions, such as the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases and related deaths in relation to the community’s population density, size of particularly vulnerable populations, and the availability of medical facilities including emergency and intensive-care capacity;

• Consultation with local health officials or departments concerning changes to levels of court and courthouse activities; and

• Consultation with local judiciary partners, such as children’s division personnel, juvenile officers, members of the bar, prosecutors and public defenders, law enforcement and probation and parole.

Courts may move to a new operating phase only after being in the prior operating phase for at least 14 calendar days, with no confirmed COVID-19 cases in the court facility and improving COVID-19 health conditions in the community during that time.

Any court may revert to a prior operating phase immediately if local conditions or circumstances change.

Regardless of the phase, local courts should:

• Allow (or, in phase three, consider allowing) “vulnerable individuals, as defined by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, to postpone their required presence in a court proceeding;

• Follow social-distancing protocols (such as marking six-foot distances where practical) and consider requiring the use of masks or other face coverings; and

• Clean and disinfect common areas and consider providing hand sanitizer and wipes.

Each operating phase, according to the directives, includes differing approaches to in-person proceedings, personnel and staffing and courthouse operations.

How those approaches will vary reportedly depends on local conditions, the needs and rights of litigants and victims, the physical layouts of the court facilities and the abilities of judicial and non-judicial personnel.

Operating phase one reportedly asks the courts to consider resuming “only the most critical in-person proceedings and restrict grand and petit (criminal/civil) jury proceedings to only the most extraordinary, pressing and urgent cases,” the order says.

Phase one also calls for an occupancy rate of 10 or less whenever possible under strict social-distancing protocols.

The courts also are to implement an appropriate level of screenings, including temperature checks and screening questions, to mitigate against individuals experiencing symptoms related to COVID-19 entering court facilities.

Phase two, the directives say, would increase in-person proceedings, including the “most extraordinary, pressing and urgent grand and petit jury proceedings … where they can safely be conducted in compliance with social-distancing protocols and occupancy rate limitations.”

Courts would have to keep occupancy rates at 25 or less whenever possible and operate under social-distancing guidelines.

Screenings of individuals entering court facilities continue in phase two.

In phase three, courts reportedly can resume in-person proceedings and operate under social-distancing protocols, with no occupancy restrictions.

The courts can consider terminating the screening procedures during phase three, but are to continue with the cleaning and disinfection of common areas.

The Supreme Court directives further say no court can transition beyond the conditions set forth in operating phase three until the court’s order is amended or rescinded.