NCJ Number
89501
Date Published
1983
Length
18 pages
Annotation
The degree of success and impact of court unification reform on the State courts depends largely on the degree to which the unification corresponds to and takes note of the three types of adjudication processes used in U.S. trial courts: procedural, decisional, and diagnostic adjudication.
Abstract
The two dimensions of unification studied were consolidation and centralization. The research selected five States which maximize the difference between high and low centralization and the difference between high and low consolidation (Connecticut, Colorado, New Jersey, Iowa, and Georgia). The primary data collection technique was face-to-face interviews with State judicial leaders and trial court judges and administrators. This was supplemented by secondary sources such as aggregate statistics from annual reports in each State. The analytical approach included descriptions of onsite observations, summaries of interview responses, and statistical analysis of aggregate data. The most significant finding was that there are three types of adjudication processes used in the trial courts: (1) procedural, which emphasizes adherence to established rules and procedures to ensure just resolution of a case and is most closely associated with courts of general jurisdiction; (2) decisional, which seeks to determine facts and apply law as quickly as possible and is commonly found in courts of limited jurisdiction; and (3) diagnostic, which seeks to determine the proper treatment for a problem rather than to establish guilt or innocence through adjudication. Court consolidation appeared to have more impact upon court efficiency when compared with centralization, but both types of unification could have been more effective if they had taken account of the use and needs of the three types of adjudication processes.