JUSTICE DELAYED - THE PACE OF LITIGATION IN URBAN TRIAL COURTS

• NCJ Number: 52357
• Author(s): T CHURCH JR; A CARLSON; J-L LEE; T TAN
• Date Published: 1978
• Length: 115 pages
• Grant Number(s): 76-DF-99-0076
• Sponsoring Agency: US Dept of Justice
• Corporate Author: National Ctr for State Courts; National Conference of Metropolitan Courts
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/; National Ctr for State Courts
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

THE RESULTS OF A STUDY OF THE PACE OF CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LITIGATION IN STATE TRIAL COURTS OF GENERAL JURISDICTION ARE DISCUSSED, AND STRATEGIES TO REDUCE DELAY ARE RECOMMENDED.

Abstract

THE MAJOR STUDY GOALS WERE TO PROVIDE A NATIONAL CONTEXT FOR THE CONCEPT OF 'DELAY,' TO DETERMINE WHY CASES MOVE FASTER IN SOME COURTS THAN IN OTHERS, AND TO EVALUATE THE MOST PROMISING METHODS OF EXPEDITING LITIGATION. DATA ON CASE-PROCESSING SPEED, PROCEDURES, AND CASELOAD WERE OBTAINED FROM 21 URBAN COURTS. AN ADDITIONAL 10 COURTS WERE STUDIED IN DEPTH, 5 ON THE PROCESSING OF CIVIL CASES AND 5 FOR CRIMINAL CASES. IN EACH OF THE 21 COURTS, COMPARABLE SETS OF CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES WERE EXAMINED TO DETERMINE PROCESSING TIME. THREE MEASURES OF CASE PROCESSING SPEED WERE FORMULATED FOR BOTH CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES; CIVIL MEASURES WERE TORT DISPOSITION TIME, TRIAL LIST DISPOSITION TIME, AND TIME TO JURY, AND CRIMINAL MEASURES WERE UPPER COURT DISPOSITION, TOTAL COURT DISPOSITION TIME, AND TIME TO JURY. A NUMBER OF STRUCTURAL ASPECTS (E.G., COURT SIZE, SPEEDY TRIAL RULES, JUDGE CASELOAD) WERE ALSO EXAMINED TO DETERMINED IF ANY RELATIONSHIP EXISTS BETWEEN COURT STRUCTURE AND PROCESSING TIME. IT WAS FOUND THAT PROBLEMS OF DELAY AND RELATED FACTORS ARE REMARKABLY SIMILAR IN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL COURTS. THE THREE CIVIL MEASURES OF CASE-PROCESSING SPEED ARE STRONGLY RELATED, AS ARE THE CRIMINAL MEASURES. ON EACH CIVIL MEASURE, THE MEDIAN TIME TO DISPOSITION IN THE SLOWEST COURT IS THREE TIMES THE COMPARABLE TIME IN THE FASTEST. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF TWO EXCEEDINGLY SLOW COURTS, THE SAME THREE-TO-ONE RELATIONSHIP EXISTS ON EACH OF THE CRIMINAL MEASURES. FURTHER, COURT SIZE, INDIVIDUAL JUDGE CASELOAD, AND THE PERCENTAGE OF TRIALS HAVE NO OBSERVABLE EFFECT ON THE PACE OF EITHER CIVIL OR CRIMINAL LITIGATION, ALTHOUGH CIVIL CASES WERE CLEARED FASTER IN COURTS USING INDIVIDUAL COURT CALENDARS AS OPPOSED TO THE MASTER CALENDAR SYSTEM. ALSO, CRIMINAL COURTS IN WHICH PROSECUTORS PROCEEDED BY MEANS OF AN INFORMATION-BASED CHARGING SYSTEM WERE SOMEWHAT FASTER THAN THOSE UTILIZING GRAND JURY INDICTMENTS. THE MAJOR RECOMMENDED STRATEGY FOR REDUCING COURT DELAY IS THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BY WHICH THE COURTS, NOT THE ATTORNEYS, CONTROL THE PROGRESS OF CASES. ALSO RECOMMENDED ARE TRIAL-SCHEDULING AND CONTINUANCE PRACTICES THAT CREATE AN EXPECTATION THAT A TRIAL WILL BEGIN ON THE FIRST DATE SCHEDULED, INSTITUTION OF AN INDIVIDUAL CALENDAR SYSTEM TO INCREASE JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY, AND SPEEDY TRIAL STANDARDS SUPPORTED BY OPERATIONAL CONSEQUENCES. A METHODOLOGICAL SUMMARY, DISPOSITION TIME MEASURES, AGGREGATE COURT DATA, AND A LIST OF SPONSORING ORGANIZATIONS ARE APPENDED. TABULAR DATA ARE PROVIDED AND REFERENCES ARE FOOTNOTED. (KBL)