NCJ Number
45475
Date Published
1976
Length
44 pages
Annotation
THIS REPORT ANALYZES NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMISSION STANDARD 4.10 (PRETRIAL MOTIONS AND CONFERENCE), EXAMINES THE OMNIBUS HEARING PROCESS, AND COMPARES THE EXISTING PHILADELPHIA COURT OPERATIONS TO STANDARD 4.10.
Abstract
OMNIBUS HEARINGS AND PRETRIAL DISCOVERY AS THEY OPERATE IN THEORY AND AS THEY OPERATE IN PHILADELPHIA'S COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ARE CONSIDERED. THE OMNIBUS PRETRIAL HEARING IS MAINLY OPERATIONAL IN FEDERAL COURT DISTRICTS, MODIFIED IN SOME INSTANCES TO FIT THE PARTICULAR NEEDS OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM. STATE COURTS HAVE BEEN ENCOURAGED TO ADOPT THIS PROCEEDING; A LIMITED NUMBER HAVE. THE FIRST CRITICAL ELEMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THE OMNIBUS TECHNIQUE IS COMPREHENSIVE PRETRIAL DISCOVERY. THIS OCCURS INFORMALLY AND/OR UNDER COURT SUPERVISION. AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION STANDARDS URGE THIS PRETRIAL DISCOVERY DURING 'DEAD TIME' WITHOUT COURT SUPERVISION AND CALL THIS THE 'EXPLORATORY STAGE.' THE SECOND ELEMENT IS THE ACTUAL OMNIBUS HEARING TO EXPEDITIOUSLY RESOLVE ANY ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY MATTERS AS WELL AS OTHER TYPICAL REQUESTS BY COUNSEL. THE PURPOSE IS TO BRING TOGETHER AT ONE COURT APPEARANCE AS MANY AS POSSIBLE OF THE COURT ACTIONS REQUIRED PRIOR TO TRIAL, THUS SAVING TIME, ENERGY, AND RESOURCES FOR ALL INVOLVED. PROPONENTS OF PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CLAIM THAT IT REDUCES ACTUAL TRIAL TIME BY ALLOWING THE DEFENDANT TO MAKE A MORE INTELLIGENT PLEA AND BY ELIMINATING LONG, DRAWN OUT DELAYS WHILE THE DEFENSE EXAMINES PROSECUTION MOVES. OPPONENTS STATE THAT THE DEFENDANT HAS SUFFICIENT GUARANTEE OF RIGHTS WITHOUT BEING ALLOWED TO PICK OVER PROSECUTION EVIDENCE AT LEISURE. THIS REPORT PRESENTS BOTH ARGUMENTS AND STATES THAT OPPOSING ARGUMENTS ARE NOT SUFFICIENTLY SUBSTANTIATED TO REJECT PRETRIAL DISCOVERY AS AN EFFECTIVE MECHANISM TO PRODUCE GREATER JUDICIAL EFFICIENCY AND FAIRNESS. NO MAJOR VERSION OF THE PENNSYLVANIA PRETRIAL RULES HAS OCCURRED SINCE 1965. UNDER RULE 310 OF THE PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, IT IS WITHIN THE COURTS' DISCRETION TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT RECEIVES HIS OR HER OWN WRITTEN STATEMENTS PRIOR TO TRIAL AND UNLESS HE OR SHE CAN PROVE 'EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND COMPELLING REASONS' EXIST, THE DEFENDANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY INFORMATION EXCEPT THAT WHICH IS EXCULPATORY IN NATURE. THIS RULE IS OFTEN EASED VIA THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OPEN-FILE POLICY, BUT THIS IS NOT UNIFORMLY APPLIED. SINCE SUCCESS OF THE OMNIBUS HEARING DEPENDS UPON A LIBERAL PRETRIAL DISCOVERY PRACTICE, IT IS NOT WELL UTILIZED IN PHILADELPHIA. CONCERN IS EXPRESSED OVER THE EVOLUTION OF THE OMNIBUS PROCESS IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT COURT OF CALIFORNIA, WHERE IT SIMPLY BECAME A SCHEDULING POINT FOR A FUTURE ACTION DATE. HOWEVER, THIS PROCEDURE HAS GREAT POTENTIAL FOR SAVINGS OF TIME AND RESOURCES AND SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED. APPENDIXES PRESENT AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION STANDARDS RELATING TO DISCOVERY AND PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL, AN OMNIBUS MOTION CHECKLIST, AND A BIBLIOGRAPHY. (GLR)