VOLUME AND DELAY IN THE MONTANA SUPREME COURT

• NCJ Number: 67888
• Author(s): J A MARTIN; E A PRESCOTT
• Date Published: 1980
• Length: 97 pages
• Grant Number(s): 78-DF-AX-0021; 79-DF-AX-0082
• Sponsoring Agency: US Dept of Justice; Charles E Culpeper Foundation
• Corporate Author: National Ctr for State Courts
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
• Publication Type: Statistics
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: VOLUME AND DELAY STAFF STUDY SERIES

Annotation

THIS REPORT OF THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS FOCUSES ON THE PROBLEMS OF VOLUME AND DELAY IN THE MONTANA SUPREME COURT; REPORT APPLICABILITY TO OTHER JURISDICTIONS IS EMPHASIZED.

Abstract

ONE OF A SERIES OF 11 REPORTS, THIS ONE IS THE PRODUCT OF AN EXTENSIVE DATA COLLECTION EFFORT UNDERTAKEN IN AUGUST 1978 AS PART OF A NATIONAL EXAMINATION OF APPELLATE COURT DELAY PROBLEMS. TWO TYPES OF INFORMATION WERE USED FOR THE WORK. THE FIRST TYPE OF INFORMATION IS DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION CONCERNING COURT RULES AND PROCEDURES WHICH WAS ACQUIRED THROUGH SITE VISITS TO THE COURT. THE SECOND TYPE OF INFORMATION IS QUANTITATIVE DATA WHICH DESCRIBE THE COURT'S CASELOAD IN TERMS OF CASE CHARACTERISTICS AND TIME LAPSE IN PROCESSING. QUANTITATIVE DATA WERE DERIVED FROM A SYSTEMATIC SAMPLE DRAWN FROM THE COURT RECORDS OF 708 CASES PROCESSED DURING 1975-76. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THE PREDECISION PHASE OF THE APPELLATE PROCESS PRESENT PROBLEMS FOR THE COURT. CASES OFTEN EXCEED THE COURT'S MAXIMUM TIME LIMITS FOR FILING BRIEFS, RECORDS, AND TRANSCRIPTS. ATTORNEYS AND TRIAL COURT CLERKS APPEAR TO BE THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF DELAY AT THIS STAGE. TIME LAPSE DATA FOR THE DECISION STAGE INDICATE THAT THE COURT IS OPERATING EFFICIENTLY AT THIS POINT. CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS, JURISDICTION CHARACTERISTICS, AND STAFF RESOURCES ARE NOT CONTRIBUTORY FACTORS IN DELAYS. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE COURT IMPLEMENT NEW POLICIES APPLICABLE TO THE PREDECISION STAGE AND REQUIRE STRICT ADHERENCE TO THEM. THE MONTANA SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO GRANT FILING EXTENSIONS RATHER THAN ALLOWING TRIAL JUDGES THIS DISCRETIONARY POWER. IN ADDITION, THE COURT SHOULD CONSIDER SCREENING CASES WHICH DO NOT REQUIRE ORAL ARGUMENT. SHORTER TIME LIMITS SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED REGARDING OPINION PREPARATION. FINALLY, THE COURT IS URGED TO DEVELOP A UNIFORM CASE TRACKING SYSTEM. FOOTNOTES, TABLES, AND FIGURES ARE INCLUDED. APPENDIXES INCLUDE A FRAMEWORK FOR EXAMINING DELAY IN APPELLATE COURT SYSTEMS AND RELATED INFORMATION.