Justice in Felony Courts - A Prescription To Control Delay

• NCJ Number: 75965
• Author(s): E C Friesen; M Geiger; J Jordan; A Sulmonetti
• Date Published: 1979
• Length: 92 pages
• Grant Number(s): 78-DF-AX-0084
• Sponsoring Agency: US Dept of Justice
• Corporate Author: Whittier College School of Law
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: A report on A Study of Delay in Metropolitan Courts during 1978-1979.

Annotation

A study conducted by the Whittier College School of Law and funded by LEAA which addresses critical factors affecting delay in felony courts is described.

Abstract

The study was premised on the fact that reduction of court delay is necessary to preserve the basic purpose of courts (i.e., to do justice). During a 1-year study in four courts located throughout the United States, the Whittier staff compared the most expeditious felony court in the country with the four other courts, identifying the critical factors which affect delay. These factors included organization of the system to make policy decisions, organization of the court for case processing, control of case inventories by the court, use of arraignment as a control point, the existence and enforcement of operating standards, use of information for monitoring and evaluation, and having resources necessary to maintain the control system. The study confirmed the importance of these factors and recognized as most critical the provision for early discovery, structured plea conferences, and plea cutoff dates. Further, cultural factors which tended to promote and maintain delay were identified. These factors included the legal, political, economic, and social cultures of the system. The staff encountered traditional organizational resistance to change in the systems studies and was at least partially successful in developing techniques with which to overcome this resistance. The staff developed a delay management program comprised of the following steps: identifying and describing the content and sequence of necessary court events, measuring the time intervals between events, determining the age of the pending inventory in significant time spans, identifying the relationships of the actors with respect to each event, convening the actors and presenting the perspective to them, organizing task groups to work on identifiable problems, providing staff assistance, developing attainable goals, and reinforcing accomplishment of objectives. Application of this plan to the courts examined resulted in improvement in all cases. A few tables, an appendix presenting a sample form, and 60 footnotes are included. (Author abstract modified)