Court Organization and Operation CHAPTER SEVEN Court Organization and Operation Courts and camps are the only place to learn the world in. —EARL OF CHESTERFIELD

LEARNING OBJECTIVES At the conclusion of this chapter, the student will: be familiar with the ramifications of the adversarial system know the importance of citizen groups in the courtroom understand the organization and administration of our dual (federal and state) court systems comprehend the roles and functions of the Judicial Conference of the United States and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts be able to explain the kinds of jurisdiction that courts possess

LEARNING OBJECTIVES (cont.) At the conclusion of this chapter, the student will: be familiar with state courts and trial courts of general and limited jurisdictions know the four components of court unification, how a unified court is organized, and the functional and financial advantages of court unification understand the importance of court decor and decorum understand why the courts' caseloads have increased understand the influence of courts on policymaking

Inside the Courts Decor, Decorum, Citizens - Hallowed Places Practically everything one sees & hears in an American courtroom is intended to convey that the courtroom is a hallowed place in our society. Scarcely any political question arises in the US not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question. The physical décor one finds in the courts convey this sense of importance. Courtroom design also provides a safe, functional space conducive to efficient/effective proceedings. the arrangement reflects society’s view of appropriate relationships between defendant & judicial authority

Inside the Courts Decor, Decorum, Citizens - Hallowed Places A formal level of decorum is accorded this institution. all people must rise when the judge enters permission must be granted to approach the bench a general attitude of deference is granted the judge A vitriolic utterance that could lawfully be directed to the president of the United States could result in an individual being jailed for contempt of court. when directed to a judge

Inside the Courts Justice in the Eye of the Beholder Whether or not justice is obtained in the courtrooms depends on the interests or viewpoints of the affected or interested parties. a victim may not agree with a jury’s verdict; a civil case winnner may not believe that he/she received an adequate sum for suffering or damages Because the definition of justice is not always agreed on, the courts must appear to provide justice. Many people today are put off by accounts of what they perceive as coddling of offenders and ravages of the “law’s delay”.

Inside the Courts Seeking Truth in an Adversarial Atmosphere Emerson stated “every violation of truth . . . is a stab at the health of human society.” Most people would agree the traditional, primary purpose of the courts is to provide a forum for seeking and obtaining the truth. US Supreme Court declared in 1966 in that “the basic purpose of a trial is the determination of truth” Many Americans have the impression that truth is being compromised and even violated with regularity in apparatus of our justice system. and an impediment is the adversarial system itself

Inside the Courts A Dual Court System It is important to know that this country has a dual court system. One national federal court system. 50 state courts system. plus the system of the District of Columbia

Federal Court Organization/Administration The Supreme Court: Jurists, Traditions, & Work Judges And Advocacy - the US Supreme Court is the highest & one of the oldest courts in the nation. nine justices: 1 chief justice & 8 associate justices All who wish to advocate must first secure admission to the Supreme Court bar. Applicants must have been admitted to practice in the highest court of their state for 3 years and file a certificate attesting the applicant is in good standing. Applicants must swear or affirm to act “uprightly and according to law, and . . . support the Constitution of the US.”

Federal Court Organization/Administration The Supreme Court: Jurists, Traditions, & Work Inside The Court: Revered Traditions And Practices - on the architrave above the portico of the Supreme Court Building are inscribed the words “Equal Justice Under Law.” Justice Robert Jackson once described the Court’s uniqueness: “We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible because we are final.” In many respects, the Court is the same institution that first met in 1790.

Federal Court Organization/Administration The Supreme Court: Jurists, Traditions, & Work Caseload & Conferences -  the Court does not meet continuously in formal sessions during its term. sessions are divided into 4 separate, related activities Time is allocated to reading through the petitions for review of cases that come annually to the Court. Second, the Court allocates time for oral arguments The third allotment is for private discussions of how each justice will vote on cases they have just heard. A fourth block of time is for work on writing opinions.

Federal Court Organization/Administration The Supreme Court: Jurists, Traditions, & Work The Court has complete discretion to control the nature and number of the cases it reviews. by means of the writ (order) of certiorari The Court hears only a tiny fraction of the thousands of cases it is petitioned to consider. when it declines to hear a case, the decision of the lower court stands as the final word on the case Adding to the Court’s workload is a steady growth in legislation requiring judicial interpretation. and an increasing number of constitutional & other issues that can be reviewed in the federal courts

Federal Court Organization/Administration US Courts of Appeals The courts of appeals are the intermediate courts of appeals for the federal court system. A court of appeals hears appeals from the district courts located within its circuit, as well as appeals from decisions of federal administrative agencies. The courts are staffed by 179 judges nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. As with the Supreme Court, the caseload of the courts of appeals has grown as well; in 2001 there were 57,464 cases filed; by 2006 that number had risen to 70,375—a 23 percent increase.

Federal Court Organization/Administration US District Courts Congress created 94 US district courts, of which 89 are located within the 50 states. at least one district court in each state; some states have more, such as California, New York, & Texas As with the other federal courts, the president nominates district judges, who must be confirmed. they serve for life unless removed for cause US district courts are courts of original jurisdiction for all major violations of federal criminal law. District Criminal cases filed increased from 62,957 in 2002 to 68,090 in 2006, or about 8 percent.

Federal Court Organization/Administration US Courts of Appeal & US District Court Circuits Figure 7.1  Geographic boundaries of US Courts of Appeals and US District Courts.  Source: US Courts of Appeals and US District Courts www.uscourts. gov/images/circuitmap.pdf.

Federal Court Organization/Administration Judicial Conference of the US The administrative policymaking organization of the federal judicial system. Membership consists of the chief justice, the chief judges of each of the courts of appeals, one district judge from each circuit, and the chief judge of the Court of International Trade. Meets semiannually for 2-day sessions. most of the work is done by about 25 committees The Judicial Conference directs the Administrative Office of the US Courts and plays a major role in impeachment of federal judges.

Federal Court Organization/Administration Administrative Office of the US Courts Since 1939, the day-to-day administrative tasks of the federal courts have been handled by the Administrative Office of the US Courts (AO), a judicial agency. The director of the AO is appointed by the chief justice of the Supreme Court and reports to the Judicial Conference. The AO is also the housekeeping agency of the judiciary, responsible for allotting authorized funds and supervising expenditures.

State Courts Last Resort Courts of last resort are usually referred to as state supreme courts. specific names differ from state to state, as do the number of judges from five to as many as nine These courts do not use panels in making decisions. the entire court sits to decide each case All have a limited amount of original jurisdiction in such matters as disciplining lawyers and judges. In those 11 states without an intermediate court of appeals, the state supreme court has no power to choose which cases will be placed on its docket.

State Courts Last Resort The ability of most state supreme courts to choose cases makes them important policymaking bodies. state supreme courts handle 100 or so cases that present the most challenging legal issues in the state Nowhere is the policymaking role more apparent than in deciding death penalty cases. which in most states are automatically appealed to the state’s highest court, bypassing the intermediate courts of appeals State supreme courts are the ultimate review board for matters involving interpretation of state law.

State Courts Appellate Like federal counterparts, state courts have experienced growth in appellate cases that threatens to overwhelm the state supreme court. To alleviate caseload burden, officials in 39 states created intermediate courts of appeals (ICAs). ICAs must hear all properly filed appeals ICAs represent the final stage of the process for most litigants. very few cases make it to appellate court, and of those cases, only a small portion will be heard by the state’s court of last resort

State Courts Unified Court Systems Historically, state court reform has centered on implementing court unification. since the 1900s, organization of US courts has been a primary concern of reformers who believe the multiplicity of courts is inefficient A unified court system would shift judicial control to centralized management. the loose network of independent judges & courts would be replaced by a hierarchy with authority concentrated in the state capital

State Courts Unified Court Systems - Perceived Benefits Simplified court structure - variations among counties would be eliminated. Centralized administration - the state supreme court working with state/county court administrators. Centralized rule making - the state supreme court should have the power to adopt uniform rules that would be followed by all courts in the state. Centralized budgeting - a single budget would be prepared for the state judiciary & sent to legislature.

the states of Illinois and New York Two systems—one unified on a statewide basis & one not—demonstrate unification in action. the states of Illinois and New York Figure 7.4  Illinois and New York court structures. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, State Court Organization, October 2007, p.5

Trial Courts General Jurisdiction: Major Trial Courts There are an estimated 2,000 major trial courts in the 50 states and DC, staffed by over 11,000 judges. General jurisdiction means these courts have the legal authority to decide all matters not specifically delegated to lower courts. common names are district, circuit & superior courts The great majority of the nation’s judicial business occurs at the state, not the federal, level. As most criminal cases do not go to trial, the dominant issue in courts of general jurisdiction is what penalty to apply to the guilty.

Trial Courts General Jurisdiction: Major Trial Courts Note the variety of functions and programs that exist in addition to the basic court role of hearing trials and rendering dispositions. Figure 7.5  Organizational structure of a district court serving a population of 300,000 (MIS = Management Information Systems).

Trial Courts Limited Jurisdiction: Lower Courts At the lowest level trial courts of limited jurisdiction, also known as inferior courts or lower courts, which decide a restricted range of cases. district, justice, justice of the peace, city, magistrate, or municipal courts 85 percent of all judicial bodies in the US created/maintained by city/county governments not part of the state judiciary. The caseload can be divided into felony criminal cases, nonfelony criminal cases, and civil cases.

The Influence of Courts in Policymaking The judicial branch has the responsibility to determine legislative intent of the law and provide public forums—the courts—for resolving disputes. Determining what the law says and providing a public forum involve the courts in policymaking. Policymaking can be defined as choosing among alternative choices of action, particularly in the allocation of limited resources “where the chosen action affects the behavior and well-being of others who are subject to the policymaker’s authority.” The policy decisions of the courts affect virtually all of us in our daily lives.

The Influence of Courts in Policymaking Because many of the Constitution’s limitations on government are couched in vague language, the judicial branch must eventually deal with potentially volatile social issues. It may appear that the courts are too broad in their review of issues. it should be remembered judges “cannot impose their views… until someone brings a case to court” Decisions of the courts can be overturned by legislative action. the judicial branch depends on a perception of legitimacy surrounding its decisions

SUMMARY This chapter reviewed the distinctive nature of the courts and their organization and some of their administration. Several areas were highlighted, including the nature of the courts in terms of the status they are accorded and their use of the adversarial system in trying to arrive at the truth The dual system of courts in our country–courts of last resort, appeals courts, and trial courts at the federal and state levels; how federal courts are administered & movement toward court unification. Also discussed is the role of courts in policymaking.

SUMMARY (cont.) A need and an issue indicated in this chapter is that of court reform due to the often confusing way in which courts and judges are organized and utilized. Another issue raised is the burgeoning caseloads of the courts.

Court Issues and Practices CHAPTER NINE Court Issues and Practices Justice is such a fine thing that we cannot pay too dearly for it. —EARL ALAIN RENE LESAGE

LEARNING OBJECTIVES At the conclusion of this chapter, the student will: understand the differences between the due process and crime control models have a firm grasp of the growing trend toward problem-solving courts be knowledgeable about courthouse violence, both actual and potential, and what must be done to assess and deal with threats to court actors be familiar with the problems and consequences of, and solutions for, trial delays understand the two systems used in scheduling cases

LEARNING OBJECTIVES (cont.) At the conclusion of this chapter, the student will: be able to explain the courts' role in media relations know the importance of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and why it is considered the wave of the future be familiar with a recent major U.S. Supreme Court decision concerning federal sentencing guidelines be conversant with such issues as gender bias, juveniles being tried as adults and shackled in courtrooms, the exclusionary rule, the use of cameras in the courtroom, and plea bargaining understand some issues facing courts in the future

Justice from the Due Process & Crime Control Perspectives The due process model holds that defendants should be presumed innocent, the courts’ first priority is to protect suspects’ rights, and granting too much freedom to law enforcement will result in the loss of freedom & civil liberties for all Americans. Standing in contrast is the crime control model, which views crime as a breakdown of individual responsibility and places the highest importance on repressing criminal conduct, thus protecting society.

Courthouse Violence Judges deal with “a segment of society that most people don’t have to deal with—people who are violent, might be mentally unstable, are desperate because they don’t have much more to lose.” Increasingly true when one considers some of the recent violent acts committed against the judiciary. These have been many incidents of courthouse violence across the nation in recent years. mirroring the society, our courts have become dangerous venues Threats against federal judicial officials alone now averaging about 700 annually.

Courthouse Violence Types of Courthouse Violence Nontargeted courthouse violence - an individual with no specific intention of engaging in violence. but during, at the conclusion of, or shortly after the court proceeding, becomes incensed & defiant at some procedure or outcome and acts out Targeted courthouse violence - an individual who expressly intends to engage in courthouse violence. deliberately focus on specific individuals or judiciary Of the two groups, the nontargeting group has been responsible for most of the violent incidents in our nation’s courthouses.

Courthouse Violence Making a Threat Assessment Targeted violence is the end result of understandable and often discernible processes of thinking & acting. neither impulsive nor spontaneous One must distinguish between expressing a threat and posing a threat. many who make threats do not pose a serious risk & many who serious risk will not issue direct threats Violence is the product of an interaction among the attacker, his/her situation, the target, and the setting. At minimum, all courts should employ security procedures.

Problem-Solving Courts “Therapeutic Justice” The 90s saw a wave of court reform across the US as judges and other court actors experimented with new ways to deliver justice. Problem-solving courts are still very much a work in progress, but they share some common elements. they use their authority to forge new responses to chronic social, human, and legal problems The results have been impressive. studies have found that these first-generation courts reduced probation violation & dismissal rates, improved public safety and are worth pursuing

Problem-Solving Courts Social & Historical Forces that Set the Stage Breakdown & loss of respect for social/community institutions, such as families and organized religion. A surge in the nation’s incarcerated population. Emphasizing accountability of public institutions. Advances in quality/availability of therapeutic interventions, particularly drug treatment programs. Shifts in public policies & priorities. the “broken windows” theory Rising caseloads and increasing frustration with the standard approach to case processing.

Problem-Solving Courts Not “McJustice” Declining public confidence, judges moaning their courts are places of “McJustice” & “plea-bargaining mills,” attorneys looking at their roles, & outcomes have led to calls for “therapeutic jurisprudence.” Critics worry defendants may be coerced into participating in these courts.

In the Spotlight Drug Courts By the end of 2004, there were 1,212 drug courts operating, another 476 were being planned. Successful completion of the program results in dismissal of charges, reduced or set-aside sentences, lesser penalties, or a combination. The drug court model includes the following: incorporating drug testing into case processing nonadversarial relationship between defendant & court referring defendants in need of treatment access to treatment and rehabilitation services

In the Spotlight Mental Health Courts In the past, courts generally treated the mentally ill in the same manner as any other defendant, and the results were devastating. because of high levels of recidivism, this situation is slowly changing The premise is that defendants are better served if they are diverted to treatment programs and remain under regular supervision for a fixed period of time. In exchange for guilty pleas, defendants are put on probation and given a treatment plan. sex offenders & violent criminals are barred

The Dilemma of Delay “Justice Delayed…” There is no consensus on how long is too long to bring a criminal case to trial, no agreed-on definition of unnecessary delay. the concern is unnecessary delay, and the test centers on prosecutor & defense attorney conduct The crime control model requires swift justice to protect society by incarcerating offenders. due process, a more thoughtful, careful approach. The public often hears of cases languishing on dockets for years. which erodes public confidence in the judicial process

The Dilemma of Delay The Consequences Delay can jeopardize values & guarantees inherent in our system & deprive defendant rights to speedy trial. lengthy pretrial incarceration can cause a defendant to plead guilty Delay can also strengthen a defendant’s bargaining position; prosecutors are more apt to accept pleas to a lesser charge when dockets are crowded. A contributor to court delay is lack of incentive to process cases speedily. the Supreme Court has refused to give the rather vague concept of a “speedy trial” a precise time frame

The Dilemma of Delay Suggested Solutions The best-known legislation addressing the problem is the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, amended in 1979, and has proven effective over the years. federal prosecutors have a total of 100 days from time of arrest until trial Laws to speed up trials at state level have had less success than federal law because most state laws fail to provide courts with adequate, effective enforcement mechanisms. time limits specified by speedy trial laws are seldom followed in practice

The Dilemma of Delay Case Scheduling: Two Systems A key part of addressing case delay concerns ability of the court administrator to set a date for trial. Individual Calendar System - a simpler procedure for scheduling cases. a primary advantage is continuity often affected by major differences in case stacking Master Calendar System -  judges oversee given stages of a case. primary advantage is judges can be assigned to the job they do best difficult to pinpoint location or responsibility for delay

The Dilemma of Delay Two Systems - Which System Is Better? Debate has developed over which is better, though the answer likely depends on the nature of the court. small courts, such as US district courts, use the individual calendar system more successfully. metropolitan & state courts almost uniformly use the master calendar system. Research indicates that courts using the master calendar experience greater difficulty. in courts where the master calendar system was discontinued, delay was greatly reduced

Decreasing Litigation Alternative Dispute Resolution Several methods are now being proposed to reduce the number of lawsuits in this country. one limits punitive damages, with only the judge being allowed to levy them another is to force losers to pay winner’s legal fees Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is appropriate when new law is not being created. The two most common forms of ADR used today are arbitration and mediation. arbitration is similar to a trial, though less formal mediation is less formal and more friendly

Recent Supreme Court Decisions on Federal Sentencing - Guidelines Two recent US Supreme Court decisions concern federal sentencing guidelines & judges’ sentences. first was the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 creating the US Sentencing Commission to establish sentencing policies and guidelines in 2007, the Court explained what it meant by “advisory” and “reasonableness” The Court found district court judges do not have to justify deviations from federal Guidelines, with broad discretion to impose “reasonable sentences”. even if the Guidelines call for different sentences

Courts’ Media Relations Good media relations can be very important for the courts—particularly in high-profile cases. people often wonder why the courts act as they do with respect to public information The National Center for Courts & Media was established to foster better communication and understanding between judges & lawyers, and between judges & journalists. the goal is to eliminate unnecessary friction between courts and the media

Other Issues Gender Bias As our society has become more diverse, gender bias problems have increased. 36 states have created task forces to investigate gender bias in the legal system Although it is difficult to estimate the true extent of gender bias, it is important to recognize and deal with it whenever it occurs. Perceptions of gender bias are a serious matter because they affect litigants’ view of the fairness of the justice system.

Other Issues Should Juveniles Be Tried as Adults? In the mid-90s, focus on crimes began to shift from drugs to juvenile crime, particularly violent crime. Numerous states are responding by making it easier to transfer juveniles from juvenile to adult courts thus juveniles tried as adults The philosophy & treatment of juveniles are quite different in the latter courts. the process is adversarial instead of amicabl punitive rather than treatment-oriented States are also lowering the age and increasing the list of crimes for which juveniles can be transferred.

Other Issues Should Juveniles Be Tried as Adults? Advocates of restorative justice emphasize that juveniles are a prime example of a group where efforts at reconciliation are likely to yield more positive results than punitive measures. should juveniles be prosecuted as adults? under what conditions sentenced & incarcerated? should potential/traditional rehabilitative philosophies & functions of juvenile court be taken into account? These questions must be addressed in light of the hardened nature of today’s violent juvenile offenders, & terms of what the future holds for juvenile violence.

Other Issues Should Juveniles Be Shackled? At issue is whether children as young as 10 need to be shackled for court security. and if chains on young defendants make them look & think of themselves that way The US Supreme Court & federal courts have held shackles on a defendant can unfairly influence a jury. adult defendants may appear in court in shackles, but not in front of their jury Routine shackling is a better-safe-than-sorry approach when teenage impulsiveness leads to an escape attempt or attack on a person in court.

Other Issues Should Juveniles Be Shackled? Conversely, advocates argue that policies requiring juveniles to be shackled are unnecessary because most juveniles are there for nonviolent offenses. Overall, it would appear that momentum is building against the use of shackles in juvenile court. at least in terms of a state’s having a broad policy requiring juveniles to be restrained There seems to be more agreement that need for shackling should be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Other Issues Should the Exclusionary Rule Be Banned? The exclusionary rule became controversial for crime control & due process advocates when adopted in 1961 by the US Supreme Court in Mapp v. Ohio. For experts inclined toward the due process model, illegal conduct by the police cannot be ignored. they believe that a court that admits tainted evidence tolerates unconstitutional conduct that produced it and demonstrates an “insufficient commitment to the guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure.

Other Issues Should Cameras Be Banned? The widely televised trial of O.J. Simpson clearly caused a reconsideration of this issue. perceptions that Simpson’s lawyers played to the cameras had an impact in several cases that followed Opponents complain televising trials distorts the process, encouraging participants to play to cameras. Supporters of the practice maintain televising trials has educational value, providing the public with a firsthand view of how courts operate. Studies found viewers of a televised trial became more knowledgeable about the judicial process

Other Issues Does Plea Bargaining Belong? Some people in the court system believe plea bargaining reduces the courthouse to something akin to a Turkish bazaar - justice on the cheap. Others believe it makes the job of judge, prosecutor, & defense attorney much easier. Regardless of which side one supports, it is ironic that police & civil libertarians oppose plea bargaining. but for different reasons A bargained agreement on reduced charges may be the product of initial overcharging and/or of evidence problems that surface later.

Jury Science Scientific jury selection—hiring a private consulting firm to sample a geographical area and determine what constitutes a jury of one’s peers—has existed for many years. methods used & services provided by many firms today to assist trial attorneys are relatively new Many private firms provide consultation concerning jury selection and focus on the thought processes of jurors to also make the jury more predictable. They also prepare courtroom graphics, animations, and estimates of the probability of damages based on jury research.

Future Considerations Shifts in Philosophy and Practice Private businesses offering adjudication, arbitration, & mediation will increasingly compete with courts. Judicial decisions, such as small claims, traffic & status offenses will be made by nonlawyer judges. Court programs will be increasingly decentralized. Court organizational structures will be less formal, with less reliance on hierarchical, bureaucratic structures & shared leadership. Not to be overlooked in the courts’ future are the impacts of high technology & integration of criminal justice information systems.

Future Considerations Trends & Expectations To Shape the Courts Demand for culturally appropriate court and justice services, including interpreters. Diverse expectations for the courts’ role in society. Alterations in family composition. More demand for acceptance of alternative lifestyles. Increasing manipulation of public opinion about crime and the courts using mass media. Rapidly emerging information/networking technology.

SUMMARY This chapter discussed challenges involving the courts, generated from both internal and external sources, for today and for the future. It is obvious that contemporary and future court issues and operations carry tremendous challenges for administrators. Court leaders must be innovative, open to new ideas, accountable, well trained, and educated for the challenges that lie ahead. Legislators and policymakers must be more aware of difficulties confronting courts & be prepared to provide additional resources.