NCJ Number
110622
Journal
Judges' Journal Volume: 27 Issue: 1 Dated: (Winter 1988) Pages: 7-9,44-47
Date Published
1988
Length
7 pages
Annotation
This article reports on a 2-year study of three courts and the techniques and methods they used to reduce the amount of time necessary to process and decide criminal appeals.
Abstract
The three courts studied are the Illinois Appellate Fourth District in Springfield; the California Court of Appeals, Third District in Sacramento; and the Rhode Island Supreme Court. The researchers examined case files and conducted interviews with judges, government attorneys, defense counsel, and court staff in the three jurisdictions. Each of the three courts employed a different management method to handle criminal appeals. The Illinois court used case management and affirmatively monitored compliance with its scheduling orders. The California court used a no-argument calendar that relies on an experienced court staff to screen cases it believed do not require oral argument. The Rhode Island court used a fast-track procedure to differentiate cases requiring full briefing, oral argument, and published opinion from those that do not. A detailed discussion of each approach notes that the approaches differ in how they treat essential details of the appeals process, their points of intervention, the role assigned to staff, and their objectives. Two facets playing an important role in court reform are emphasized: (1) court organization, jurisdiction, and caseload composition and (2) the court's working environment. It is concluded that routine exercises a powerful influence over what appellate courts do, despite good reasons they may have for selecting one procedural approach over another. Additionally, courts must document and define their delay problems before developing and adapting new management strategies to overcome them. 13 footnotes.