NCJ Number
49665
Journal
Mercer Law Review Volume: 28 Dated: (1976) Pages: 329-339
Date Published
1976
Length
11 pages
Annotation
EXPERIENCES WITH OMNIBUS HEARINGS IN THE SAN DIEGO PROJECT OF THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, ARE DETAILED. PROBLEMS WHICH AROSE ARE EXAMINED AND RELATED TO THE SITUATION IN STATE COURTS.
Abstract
FIRST PROPOSED BY THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION IN 1967, THE OMNIBUS HEARING IS PART OF A 3-STEP PROCESS IN WHICH THE TRIAL COURT SHARES WITH COUNSEL THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR RAISING ISSUES AND MOVING THE CASE TO FINAL DISPOSITION. THE FIRST STEP INVOLVES DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE ATTORNEYS WITHOUT COURT SUPERVISION. THE GOALS ARE FULL DISCLOSURE OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE BY BOTH PARTIES, CONSIDERATION OF A GUILTY PLEA, AND IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES WHICH WILL PROBABLY ARISE. THE SECOND STAGE, THE OMNIBUS HEARING ITSELF, IS A FORMAL COURT HEARING TO MAKE SURE SUCH DISCLOSURE HAS TAKEN PLACE. THE THIRD STAGE IS A PRETRIAL CONFERENCE TO DISCUSS SPECIFICS OF THE PROJECTED TRIAL. THIS STAGE REACHED IN ONLY THOSE FEW CASES WHICH ACTUALLY GO TO TRIAL. U.S. DISTRICT COURTS HAVE IMPLEMENTED OMNIBUS HEARINGS IN TEXAS, MISSOURI, KANSAS, AND FLORIDA WITH VARYING RESULTS. HOWEVER, ALL THESE COURTS HAVE RELATIVELY SMALL CRIMINAL CASELOADS. THE SAN DIEGO PROJECT IS THE FIRST TRIAL OF THE OMNIBUS PROCEDURE IN A SITUATION MORE SIMILAR TO THAT OF A STATE TRIAL COURT. AS IN STATE COURTS, SAN DIEGO HAS A LARGE CRIMINAL CASELOAD (2,470 CASES IN 1974 OR 502 PER JUDGE) WITH A LARGE NUMBER OF GUILTY PLEAS AND AN EFFICIENT CRIMINAL CASELOAD MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. THE OMNIBUS SIMPLY ADDED AN ADDITIONAL COURT APPEARANCE WHICH REQUIRED 10-25 MINUTES PER CASE. FOR DEFENDANTS WHO HAVE PLED GUILTY ANYWAY, THERE WAS NO TIME SAVED AND FOR OTHER DEFENDANTS TIME WAS ADDED TO THE TRIAL DELAY BECAUSE THE ATTORNEYS WAITED UNTIL AFTER THE FORMAL HEARING BEFORE ENTERING PLEA. DISCOVERY WAS NOT INCREASED BECAUSE THOSE ATTORNEYS WHO SUPPORTED FULL PRETRIAL DISCOVERY SHARED DURING THE INFORMAL STAGE, WHILE THOSE WHO DID NOT SUPPORT IT MANAGED TO POSTPONE DISCOVERY ISSUES UNTIL STILL ANOTHER HEARING. THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS PLACED THE INFORMAL CONFERENCE BETWEEN INDICTMENT AND ARRAINGMENT, ELIMINATING THE FORMAL OMNIBUS HEARING IN MOST CASES AND EXPERIENCING A 30 PERCENT INCREASE IN GUILTY PLEA RATES AND A DECREASE IN WRITTEN MOTIONS AND BRIEF. OTHER U.S. DISTRICTS HAVE USED FEDERAL MAGISTRATES TO CONDUCT THE OMNIBUS HEARING TO RELIEVE INCREASED BURDEN ON THE JUDGE'S TIME. IN GEORGIA POOR DEFENDANTS USUALLY ARE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC ATTORNEYS WELL KNOWN TO PROSECUTORS. INFORMAL CONFERENCES RESULT IN AS MUCH DISCLOSURE AS IS GOING TO TAKE PLACE WITHOUT SPECIAL MOTIONS. THE OMNIBUS HEARING IS CALLED AN UNNCESSARY EXTRA STEP. INSTEAD OF HELPING JUSTICE, IT MAY IMPEDE JUSTICE BY DELAYING TRIAL. THE ARTICLE IS HEAVILY FOOTNOTED. (GLR)